Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

projects with little open space in a single- family area because there were no standards about the character to be created. As a result, "cluster" or"PUD" became dirty words in some jurisdictions because the approved plans were considered poor. The decision makers often have their own view of what is good or attrac- tive and imposed these opinions on the plan with unpredictable results. After 5o years of experience with discretionary PUDs, there is no justification for conditional approval of PUDs, cluster development, or traditional neighbor- hood design. All these development forms have long histories, and it is possible to write a code that permits them as a matter of right. DESIGN STANDARDS The first task of objective standards is to iden- tify the desired community character and do away with floating zone PUDs. It is possible to develop zoning districts than have a specific character and adapt the standards so all uses have the same character. The elements that determine community character are well docu- mented in the books Community Character and A Guide for Planning with Community Character, which provide a guide for setting district char- acter. For those interested in traditional neigh- borhood development, the transect provides a guide. Zoning districts need to be designed for a specific character, not a group of uses. Few PUD ordinances provide an objective standard that prevents decision makers from reaching arbitrary and unpopular decisions on density. Cluster developments require open space. A minimum open space standard paired with density is a key to community character. Stormwater management systems, recreation needs, buffer yards, and natural resources are all factors to be considered in setting the minimum open space. In park planning, there are standards relating the need for recreation to population. Objective standards for resource protection have been used in zoning ordi- nances since 1974, and can be quantified. CONCLUSIONS Quality development is poorly served by condi- tional decision making. Decision makers often seek to impose their values; opponents want to defeat the project. There are no guides to what makes quality. It is possible to eliminate nearly all conditional approvals, variances, conditional uses, and PUDs. There are a number of common zoning standards that can address quality. Landscap- ing, sign control, lighting, and bufferyards are elements that promote quality that can easily be adopted. Community preference surveys support strong landscaping regulation. Too many or too big signs are also given low ratings in these surveys. Residents can see that buffer yards are objective standards that can improve quality. These standards are simpler and less complex than more drastic architectural con- trols such as materials or architectural style. Architectural regulations are most often discre- tionary, or in some cases advisory, which again create uncertainty and extend approval time. Getting on a bus and looking at good and bad developments in the community or area is a good way to establish standards. By reviewing existing landscaping, signs, and lighting, the elements from the highest quality developments provide the standards. Objective standards like buffer yards appeal to citizens because they can see it protects their neigh- borhood. The planning staff needs to show residents regulations that demonstratively provide improved quality. There is a long history of such standards in performance zoning. The first performance ordinances were written in 1974. A model code was published by the American Planning Association in 198o, where cluster, planned development, and mixed use development are permitted by right. Some states have amended their statutes to specifically permit perfor- mance zoning where innovative development is permitted by right. Form -based codes produce quality traditional neighborhood developments through the use of objective standards. Objective standards are good for both developer and citizen. Developers can read regulations and have a definitive path to ap- proval. Citizens will support regulations that protect them. The substitution of objective standards will better protect citizens and achieve plan- ning goals. A major benefit is that it will be a shorter, surer, and less expensive process. Mu- nicipalities, developers, and citizens save time and money, and the results of applications become predictable. The money that currently goes to hiring attorneys and expert witnesses and paying interest can reduce the cost of the use or development. With conditional approvals, citizens who have opposed a project often see bias on the part of staff and decision makers when the decision goes the other way. Objective stan- dards make the decision making transparent because compliance with each standard can be factually documented. About the Author Lane Kendig is the founder and former president of Kendig Keast Collaborative. He has been practicing and writing about the relationship between community design planning and regulatory tools for more than 45 years. In addition to the recent books Community Character and its companion, A Guide to Planning with Community Character (available at islandpress.org/author/lane-h- kendig), Kendig is the author of Performance Zoning and the PAS reports Too Big, Boring, or Ugly; Traffic Sheds, Rural Highway Capacity, and Growth Management; and Performance Standards forNon-ResidentialUses (available at planning.org/books). Cover: Potapova Valeriya/Hemera/ Thinkstock; design concept by Amanda Kowalski Vol. 33, No. 4 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Nanning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and $12o (foreign). James M. Drinan, je, Executive Director; David Rouse, FAICP, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548—oi35) is produced atAPA. Jim Schwab, FAICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Senior Editor. Missing and damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o6o1(312-431-9100 or customerservice©planning.org) within 90 days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month, and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable. Copyright ©2016 by the American Planning Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601-5927. The American Planning Association also has offices at io3o 15th St., NW, Suite 75o West, Washington, DC 20005-1503; planning.org. 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, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-7o % recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 4.16 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page?