|
locally) to omit porches, patios, bay windows,
<br />covered entries, and other elements, could be
<br />beneficial to remove barriers to minor property
<br />investments. Modifying bulk and scale require-
<br />ments in older neighborhoods allows for addi-
<br />tions (horizontal or vertical) that accommodate
<br />contemporary amenities without compromising
<br />local character.
<br />Parking Requirements
<br />Many communities apply on-site parking re-
<br />quirements equally across all development.
<br />However, older, more urban commercial cor-
<br />ridors have smaller lots that cannot accommo-
<br />date a viable building footprint and a suburban
<br />parking program (suburban communities often
<br />require between 3.5 and 5 parking spaces per
<br />i,000 square feet of retail space). This places
<br />an unreasonable burden on the smaller lots. It
<br />also fails to recognize, when they are present,
<br />the benefits of nearby walkable neighborhoods
<br />and on -street parking that often exist along
<br />older commercial corridors. Potential solutions
<br />to this issue include context -specific parking
<br />requirements, limited parking exemptions,
<br />shared or remote parking allowances, and situ-
<br />ational parking reductions.
<br />Varying on-site parking requirements
<br />based on the type of commercial area can en-
<br />courage investment without altering the exist-
<br />ing character of development. An exemption of
<br />the first 1,50o square feet (or a similar number
<br />of local applicability) of building area as it ap-
<br />plies to parking requirements along older com-
<br />mercial corridors can achieve similar results.
<br />Allowing shared or remote parking to reduce
<br />the burden on individual properties, while
<br />treating the area like a collective commercial
<br />environment, can create a more functional
<br />commercial area. Finally, reducing parking
<br />requirements for proximity to transit, bicycle
<br />accommodations, or pedestrian access in ar-
<br />eas that are transit, bike, or pedestrian friendly
<br />recognizes other means of access.
<br />Unfriendly Codes
<br />Zoning codes are often difficult to navigate or
<br />understand. They often have redundant or con-
<br />flicting'language. They may leave an applicant
<br />guessing how to seek development approval.
<br />In some cases, the zoning map may have
<br />districts not included in the code. To potential
<br />investors, time is money, and a user-friendly
<br />code can significantly reduce the amount of
<br />time it takes to determine development viabil-
<br />ity, and ultimately approval. All of these symp-
<br />toms can be addressed without changing the
<br />underlying standards that govern development.
<br />Restructure the code to lead users
<br />through a basic sequence of questions: What
<br />is the zoning ordinance, and what does it aim
<br />to accomplish (purpose and intent, authority,
<br />and applicability)? What are the basic char-
<br />acteristics of development permitted on my
<br />property (zoning map, district bulk standards,
<br />and permitted uses)? What requirements are
<br />applicable regardless of what zoning district
<br />my property is in (general development stan-
<br />dards, use standards, parking, landscaping,
<br />and sign regulations)? What supporting in-
<br />formation do I need to know (definitions and
<br />nonconformities)? And how do I go about get-
<br />ting approval for development (administrative
<br />procedures)?
<br />Audit the zoning map and code to ensure
<br />they align—you'd be surprised at how often
<br />they don't. Some communities adopt regula-
<br />tions for districts they anticipate in the future.
<br />However, several communities have old rem-
<br />nant districts that are no longer mapped. This
<br />creates confusion and extra language to filter
<br />through.
<br />To the extent possible, reduce the
<br />number and complexity of zoning districts.
<br />Communities often create new districts when
<br />they should be looking for ways to reduce the
<br />number of districts. Minor nuances can often
<br />be handled within a single district, and, to the
<br />extent possible, overlay regulations should be
<br />folded into base district standards.
<br />Include a navigation guide, tables, flow-
<br />charts, graphics, and cross-references through-
<br />out the code. A one-page table, diagram of a
<br />zoning concepts, or procedural flowchart can
<br />often clarify or replace pages of text.
<br />MODERNIZATION
<br />As planning introduces and advocates for new
<br />best practices in development, communities
<br />often struggle with how to regulate new tech-
<br />nologies, infrastructure systems, and design
<br />elements. While the value of new practices may
<br />be recognized, many fear the unknown and
<br />untested and the potential negative impacts
<br />on community character. The following are
<br />examples of how emerging trends are being
<br />integrated into local ordinances through regu-
<br />latory modernization.
<br />Interactive Codes
<br />More and more, people are accessing local
<br />zoning ordinances through the web. This pro-
<br />vides the opportunity for several tools that
<br />can make the code more dynamic, interactive,
<br />and user-friendly. Hyperlinks, pop-up refer-
<br />ences and definitions, and floating graphics
<br />can make static documents easier to navigate.
<br />In some instances, online tools are able to
<br />model the permitted building envelope for a
<br />given property or illustrate the required buf-
<br />fer between two properties based on property
<br />variables.
<br />Renewable Energy
<br />Many communities discuss renewable en-
<br />ergy in their plans but often meet challenges
<br />when trying to accommodate such uses in
<br />zoning. Noise and aesthetics are often cited
<br />as concerns that create barriers to zoning
<br />modernization. Wind energy systems tend to
<br />be most contentious since they require mini-
<br />mum heights and motion to be effective. As a
<br />result, there are fewer "best practice" models
<br />for zoning standards (though some are offered
<br />in Chapter 6 ofAPA's PAS Report, Planning for
<br />Wind Energy (planning.org/research/wind/pdf
<br />/pas566.pdf). However, as solar energy sys-
<br />tems become more mainstream, many com-
<br />munities successfully accommodate the tech-
<br />nology by regulating the placement of solar
<br />panels on a site or structure to minimize their
<br />visibility from public streets and the natural
<br />grade of adjacent properties, and by regulat-
<br />ing the relative height or angle of projection
<br />from the roof plane on which they are mount-
<br />ed. These regulations minimize the impacts
<br />to the overall character of the structure and
<br />neighborhood.
<br />Solar Access
<br />Solar access is becoming a more common con-
<br />cern in development across the country. Public
<br />health studies have demonstrated the benefits
<br />of sunlight for residents, and solar energy sys-
<br />tems are reliant upon solar access to be effec-
<br />tive. Several communities are adopting regula-
<br />tions that define the maximum dimensions of
<br />a "solar fence." A solar fence is a hypothetical
<br />vertical plane built along a property line that
<br />determines how far a shadow would be cast
<br />on a neighboring structure. By regulating the
<br />size of the permitted solar fence, communities
<br />can ensure that properties enjoy access to the
<br />sun. Considerations related to the regulation of
<br />solar access include the following:
<br />• The angle of the sun on December zs based
<br />on local latitude
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 8.15
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4
<br />
|