Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special

Home

radius), existing zoning, and special features, such as topography. The photography helps illustrate specific building, frontage, and public space types as well as other opportunities and issues that will inform the visioning and coding process. Photographs also serve as the basis for poster boards showing the general com- munity character for different types of places within a community. For these reasons, pho- tographs are invaluable to the public -engage- ment process. For a more detailed explanation, see Form -Based Codes (Wiley 2008). For a site -specific or neighborhood ap- plication, the community character analysis will show how the FBC application area relates to its larger context and build an understanding of the kit of parts for the FBC. In a citywide or countywide application this process is invalu- able for developing an understanding of the different types of places that exist and develop- ing a hierarchy of place types that should be integrated into comprehensive planning and reinforced by the FBC. An example of this is the rural crossroads place type that was defined for rural Beaufort County, South Carolina, as part of the community character analysis for its FBC. For all scales of application, this process establishes a foundation for a vision and an FBC that is rooted in the history and culture of place. It is an excellent education tool and en- ables the coding team to build a level of trust with the community that the FBC will reinforce the unique and desirable aspects of the place. Complete a Visioning Process FBCs are often described as a zoning tool that can predictably implement a community's vi- sion. But to be effective as a foundation for an FBC, this vision needs to be more than just inspirational photos from other communities, generalized urban design diagrams, or broad policy statements advocating a mix of uses and walkability. A detailed visioning and public engagement process is invaluable to the long- term success of an FBC. For citywide and other larger codes, there are two different approaches to visioning. The first approach focuses on prototypical design issues and how the code will address them. This does not necessitate a charrette but does include extensive public engagement. Miami's form -based coding team used this approach to visioning in creating Miami 21, a citywide FBC. The second strategy for large-scale visioning involves selecting prototypical priority sites or neighborhoods throughout the city or county, hosting design charrettes for these sites, and using the resulting case studies to inform how the FBC will be effectively applied to similar types of places throughout the city or county. This approach was used in Livermore and Kingsburg, California; Flagstaff, Arizona; Cincin- nati; and Beaufort County, South Carolina. It is important to clarify that the charrette, as used here, is a multiday process —which is usuallya minimum of four days of consistent engagement or four or more days broken into two, two -plus day sessions —involving a multidisci- plinary team including an economist, transporta- tion consultant, and other specialists needed to address place -specific issues such as affordable housing or main -street retail programming. This information helps the code writers to anticipate and respond to the needs of the emerging plan, and it serves to help partici- pants better understand the implications and features of the expected results. For more information on charrettes see The Charrette Handbook (APA Planners Press 2006). While an FBC is not written during the char- rette, it is important to make progress on the code during the charrette. Often, a charrette provides an opportunity to vet the intent of the code, finalize a list of form -based zones, and consider potential allowed uses. Furthermore, a charrette can be useful for fleshing out key dimensional regulations for zones; refininga list of frontage, building, and civic space types along with their descriptions and dimensional regulations; giving an overview of the typical code format; formulating one or more drafts of regulating plans that map form -based zones; outlining a strategy for plugging the FBC into a community's regulatory framework; and discussing components of the FBC with city staff and other community stakeholders. Graphically Assess Your Existing Code Unpredictable build out under Euclidean zon- ing codes is one of the primary reasons many communities are looking for alternative zoning approaches like FBCs. The numerical parame- ters of Euclidean codes, while easy to compare, do not create predictable built results and of- ten preclude walkable, urban development. To target these issue areas in your existing code your FBC process should use three-dimen- sional studies to graphically assess each exist- ing zoning district (starting with medium -density residential, then moving on to commercial ® For Miami's FBC, the code team used the visioning process to address appropriate transitions from high -intensity corridors into single-family neighborhoods and used this to inform the code standards and mapping along the corridors. districts in neighborhood main street and down- town areas) for two or three typical lot sizes that exist in those zones. This is most important in existing walkable urban areas. The studies should enable you to assess the following: s. What regulation or set of regulations is the most limiting factor in development? This is typically parking but can also be lot coverage, FAR, setbacks, etc. 2. What regulations are promoting bad devel- opment? These may be provisions encouraging lot aggregation and large buildings in a context where smaller buildings are more appropri- ate, or they may be simple things like allowing parking in the front of houses or not requiring a large enough rear setback for medium -density residential areas. 3. Is your code disincentivizing smaller units? This is typically due to high parking require- ments for small units. ZONINGPRACTICE 6.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 5