|
opment patterns throughout a city or
<br />region. In practice, current applications are
<br />limited to specified geographic areas due .
<br />to the newness of the concept, the
<br />sire effort needed to develop a form-based
<br />code, and political environments that are
<br />slow to accept change, California communi-
<br />ties have been among the first to adopt the
<br />concept, primarily as afl implementation
<br />mechanism for the specffic plan, a provi-
<br />sion in the state code authorizing le§isla-
<br />lively adopted development plans for :~eo-
<br />graphic subareas of a community. Two
<br />notable examples include the Pleasant Hill
<br />BART Station Form Based Code in Contra
<br />Costa County, California, and the Re§uiating
<br />Plan for the Central Hercules Ptan in
<br />Hercu[es, California.
<br /> Elsewhere in the country, a number of
<br />communities are developing or adopting
<br />form-based codes (e.g., Iowa City, Iowa,.
<br />Woodford County, Kentucky, and Chico§o).
<br />One recent exampIe is Arlington County,
<br />Virginia, winch has implemented a form-
<br />based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an
<br />older commercial corridor.
<br />
<br /> The Columbia Pike Initiative is a Ion~-
<br />range economic development vision to create
<br />a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center
<br />along a 3.$.mile section of Columbia Pike. The
<br />Pike had experienced little development activ-
<br />ity in the past 4o years, despite its location in
<br />the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia
<br />Pike Master Plan was adopted in :zoo2 after
<br />numerous public charrettes. The subsequent
<br />Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District
<br />Form-Based Code was prepared by Geoffrey
<br />Ferrefl Associates (as subconsultants to Dover,
<br />Kohl & Partners) and adopted in February
<br />2o03. This code was designed to implement
<br />the vision of the Columbia Pike initiative,
<br />including creation of a pedestrian-oriented,
<br />mixed-use district with a variety of retail, resi-
<br />dential, and office uses.
<br /> The new code contains three main com-
<br />
<br />ponents: the re§ulating plan, building enve-
<br />lope standards, and architectural and
<br />streetscape standards. Analogous to a zoning
<br />map but much more detai(ed in its prescrip-
<br />lion of phvsical form, the regulating ptan iden-
<br />tifies the building envelope standards to be
<br />applied to specific properties, which are
<br />coded bv their street frontage (Main Street,
<br />Avenue, Local, and Neig'hborhood). The build-
<br />ing envelope standards establish basic param-
<br />
<br />eters for buildin§.form, including height, set-
<br />backs, and fenestration. They also set broad
<br />parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first
<br />and upper floors, except that the neighbor-
<br />hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to
<br />residential uses with some allowances for
<br />home offices.
<br /> The form-based code is applied as an
<br />-overlay option to the existing zoning districts.
<br />Developers are provided a variety of incen-
<br />tives to select this option, including an expe-
<br />dited permitting process for developments of
<br />40,000 square feet or less (larger develop-
<br />ments are subject to special exception
<br />review), financial incentives such as modified
<br />tax increment financing and rehabilitation tax
<br />credits, and relaxed parking requirements.
<br /> According' to Ri}:hard Tucker, county plan-
<br />ner For the Columbia Pike Initiative, the develop-
<br />ment community has expressed considerable
<br />interest in the form-based code since its adop-
<br />tion. Developers, architects, and members of
<br />the Home Builders Association have praised ~he
<br />clarity of the code and the streamlined review
<br />process. Several pending mixed-use develop-
<br />ment proposals are the direct result of the form-
<br />based code. Citizens also suppod: the new
<br />code, having been directly involved in shaping it
<br />through several design charrette.~.
<br /> Oespite the appar-
<br /> eot initial successes,
<br /> Tucker notes some chal-
<br /> lenges related to the
<br /> newness of the code.
<br /> Issues tend to arise as
<br /> proposals are submit-
<br /> ted by developers who
<br /> have problems with the
<br /> standards of the code,
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE o5.ot~
<br />AMERICAN pLANI,IING ASSOC,ATIOI'I I ,~te~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|