Laserfiche WebLink
Avoiding Common Form -Based <br />Code Mistakes, Part 2 <br />By Daniel Parolek! <br />This article is the second part of a two-part series intended to arm city planners and <br />code writers with the knowledge to effectively lead, coordinate, or contract out for a <br />form -based coding project. <br />Part one focused on misconceptions and com- <br />mon mistakes related to the practice of form - <br />based coding. It also reinforced that form -based <br />coding represents a paradigm shift in zoning <br />and should not be thought of as simply a way to <br />refine a Euclidean zoning ordinance. The table <br />included in part one presented a range of dif- <br />ferent approaches to regulating urban form and <br />introduced terminology to differentiate these <br />approaches. Some of the themes from part one <br />spill over to this issue, such as the discussion <br />about the role of land -use tables within form - <br />based codes (FBCs), the importance of the com- <br />munity character analysis and visioning phases, <br />and the effective use of the urban to ruraltran- <br />sect. This issue continues the list of common <br />mistakes to avoid and concludes with a list of <br />tips for creating an effective FBC. <br />NOT CAREFULLY VETTING ALL <br />DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS <br />Most standards within Euclidean zoning codes <br />are based on a suburban paradigm ofseparat- <br />ing and buffering uses. Consequently, these <br />codes include many barriers to creating walk- <br />able urban environments and often include <br />provisions that are not relevant, or at least less <br />important, in a walkable urban environment. <br />Therefore it is crucial to evaluate all use -specific <br />and general development standards, including <br />parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, and <br />stormwater standards, from the perspective of <br />whether or not they are applicable to creating <br />or reinforcing walkable urban places. Specific <br />examples of this include landscape buffers; <br />extensive parking lot landscaping standards, <br />lengthy and complicated signage standards, <br />and the convoluted way in which many codes try <br />to define mixed use or live/work. <br />a <br />e$al rot <br />Awning Signs. Awnings are a traditional storefront <br />fitting and can be used to protect merchants' wares <br />and keep storefront interiors shaded and cool in hot <br />weather. Retail tenant signs may be painted, screen <br />printed, or appliqueed on the awnings. <br />n"ards <br />*WNW <br />Projecting <br />Sign Area <br />Lettering Height <br />Lettering Thickness <br />Sloping Plane <br />Sign Area <br />Lettering Height <br />I sq. ft. per linear foot <br />of shopfront, max. Q <br />16" max. Q <br />6" max. Q <br />25% coverage max. 0 <br />18" max. <br />*ve...,04-ktii*oz&R.Va. <br />Width <br />Height <br />Lettering Height <br />only <br />Clear Height <br />Signs per Awning <br />75% coverage max. <br />Storefront width, max. <br />8" min.; 16" max. <br />8"max. <br />8' min. <br />1 projecting; or 1 <br />valance and I sloping <br />should be applied to the awning. Additional information <br />is prohibited. <br />® Effective form -based codes address and refine all general development standards such as <br />this signage extract from a typical FBC. <br />ZONINGPRACTICE 6.13 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2 <br />