|
parcel, or transferred anywhere within the
<br />city. Owners of receiving parcets would then
<br />be allowed to build more than they othep, vise
<br />would be allowed to buitd under their applica-
<br />ble zoning, with some sort of cap in place to
<br />guarantee that the receiving parcet's develop-
<br />ment is not too wildly out-of-pitch with the
<br />zoning for the surrounding area,
<br />
<br /> ]'DR does more than slice the Gordian
<br />knot of compensating for regulatory burdens
<br />without debiting public accounts. It changes
<br />the way planning currently conceptualizes
<br />zoning per se. By untetherin§ development
<br />rights from their initially assigned geograph-
<br />ic locations, ]'DR liberates zoning from its
<br />parcel-by-parcel orientation. Now, those
<br />same zoning air rights float above the city,
<br />waiting to be captured by land-based mar-
<br />ket forces. Indeed, this extreme articulation
<br />of TOR is but a small step away from a zon-
<br />in§ scheme where development rights
<br />reside not with property owners, but within
<br />a public development rights bank that peri-
<br />odically auctions such rights to the highest
<br />bidder. That is, indeed, zoning for sale at its
<br />most provocative.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />
<br />This article has sought to discuss some of the
<br />crucial issues and technica{ innovations in
<br />the zoning field in cities today, To be sure,
<br />there are many more worthy of exploration.
<br />Why not integrate zoning with economic
<br />development, as have the French with their
<br />ZACs and Boston with its Boston
<br />Redevelopment Authority? How about a better
<br />link between zoning and the capita~ budget?
<br />Should not zoning cover, and direct, the loca-
<br />tion and development of pubEdy financed
<br />facilities like city hails, libraries, police sta-
<br />tions, and the like? Why not zone for transit-
<br />oriented development, or have zoning for
<br />transportation corridors? Should not zoning
<br />demand green buildings that meet LEED
<br />(Leaders~hip in Energy and Environmental
<br />Design) standards and promote sustainable
<br />patterns of development? Indeed, is it not
<br />time to integ'rate zoning and environmental
<br />impact reviews and end overlapping, duplica-
<br />tive review processes that needlessly con-
<br />sume private and public sector resources?
<br />And do buildin§ and fire codes sometimes
<br />undercut zoning even as they promote safety?
<br />
<br /> ts it not time to recognize that develop-
<br />ment approval by variance is becoming, too
<br />much the rule, and too little the exception?
<br />How often can it be said, "To zone is human,
<br />to enforce divine?" Why is historic preserva-
<br />tion almost uniformly handled separately
<br />from zoning, to the point where neighborhood
<br />groups often seek the end-run intervention of
<br />Landmarks preservation commissions to save
<br />their neighborhoods from new development,
<br />even when the historic nature of the area is
<br />dubious or at best on the margins?
<br />
<br /> What about better ways to deal with park-
<br />in§ and signs? Oo cities really have to live with
<br />adult entertainment? Are planners doing a good
<br />enough job of comprehensive pianning, in a
<br />timely, periodic manner, or are comprehensive
<br />plans themselves pass~? Ooes zoning encour-
<br />age or discourage adaptive reuse? Have zoning
<br />districts squeezed out unnecessary property
<br />rights expectations derived from unrealistic,
<br />overly generous bulk envelopes? Do Iot mergers
<br />and loose parcelization undermine standard
<br />bulk controls? Then there is regional zoning for
<br />smart growth, even if the basic organization of
<br />local governments militates against it. And what
<br />is this new idea offered by New Urbanism
<br />based on the transect, and how does it relate to
<br />zoning?
<br />
<br /> Finally, does anyone really know complete-
<br />ty what their local zoning ordinance contains?
<br />Have cities created monsters of substance and
<br />process, like the Internal Revenue Code, that
<br />make even experts fumble at finding the
<br />answer, and make intelligent participation alt
<br />but unattainable for the average person? Is the
<br />Internet an answer, even when many have no
<br />access to it, and how well have planners into-
<br />grated such technologies with zoning? When
<br />was the last time the city conducted a zoning
<br />audit to determine how well its ordinance was
<br />doing? Would a regulatory reconsideration lead
<br />to a codification to simplify the text?
<br />
<br /> These are some of the additional issues
<br />this article could consider in depth, Cities
<br />across the country face zoning chal[en§es that
<br />differ based on such divergent features as
<br />their history, economics, politics, climate,
<br />and culture. Attempts to boil down zoning to
<br />a set of generic issues run the risk of detach-
<br />in§ the technique from its true roots: a means
<br />to an end, with the end uniquely suited to a
<br />unique physical environment. But framing the
<br />
<br />discussion through a fixed set of ideas and
<br />technical applications can lead to compar-
<br />.isons and, ultimately, to flexibility and inno-
<br />vation as larger cities in America, and the
<br />thousands of smaller cities and towns and vil-
<br />lages, along with the 5o states, experiment
<br />with this long-validated, much disputed,
<br />approach to regulating the behavior of the
<br />built environment.
<br />
<br /> NEWS BRIEFS
<br />GRAVE ISSUES TRUMP ACCESS TO TRACT
<br />By Dane Matthews, AICP
<br />
<br />What began as a routine planned unit devel-
<br />opment (PUD) for the Tulsa Metropolitan
<br />Area Planning Commission, and the app[i-
<br />cant, ended up being anything but routine.
<br />PUD 6oo, developed by Ashton Creek
<br />Villa§e, LLC, involved 34 agriculturally zoned
<br />acres. The developer requested [ezoning to
<br />office light (aL), single-family residential
<br />[R$-3), and PUD [an overlay zone) at a ve~/
<br />marketable corner in southeast Tulsa. To the
<br />west and northwest are long-established
<br />cemeteries. The PUD envisioned two devel-
<br />opment areas, Tracts A (an office communi*
<br />ty) and B [a townhouse development). A
<br />[argo floodplain bisects Tract A, which fronts
<br />on and would have access to East 9zst
<br />Street, a four-lane secondary arterial. Tract
<br />B lies to the south ora and would be land-
<br />tacked without an access easement. The
<br />alternatives invotved an easement on the
<br />west side of the Rolling Oaks Cemetery west
<br />of Tract A or throu§h it. The former ease-
<br />ment was part of the PUD, but the latter was
<br />not part of the conceptual plan.
<br />
<br /> The planning commission and city coun-
<br />cil approved the PUD. As part of the develop-
<br />ment process, a Phase I environmental
<br />assessment was done. It indicated no barriers
<br />to development. It was only when the mowing.
<br />contractor did a walk-through prior to mowing'
<br />and discovered a deteriorated grave marker
<br />that trouble surfaced. The marker was in the
<br />path of the proposed access easement critical
<br />to Tract B, the townhouse development.
<br />
<br /> The contractor contacted various funeral
<br />homes in the area to determine whether any
<br />records of gravesites on the prope~ existe~l.
<br />Under provisions of the Oklahoma Embalmers
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE ol.o4
<br />A~ER~CAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1,0°~1J3
<br />
<br />
<br />
|