Laserfiche WebLink
their community. In this case, testing may <br />involve finding a number of examples of <br />situations where structures are conforming, <br />but landscaping, parking, or lighting <br />would be nonconforming, and explaining <br />the differences between how the two <br />approaches would handle such a situation. <br />There may be a good deal of support, or <br />there may be some reluctance depending <br />on the details. In either case, testing the <br />approach using real -world examples allows <br />fora much clearer understanding and an <br />informed decision -making process. <br />Dimensional Testing <br />Dimensional testing is an important <br />practical step to ensure that any new <br />regulations adequately address the existing <br />development pattern on the ground. Many <br />zoning ordinances contain residential <br />district dimensional standards that create <br />a great deal of nonconformity, making life <br />difficult for home owners who simply want <br />to maintain or improve their property. Lot <br />area, lot width, and setback dimensions <br />required by residential districts within older <br />zoning ordinances often do not correspond <br />to the pattern of development that has <br />occurred. They frequently require a much <br />greater lot area and larger setbacks than the <br />predominant development pattern. <br />A key step in updating these <br />dimensional standards is to evaluate the <br />relationship between what is required and <br />what is actually built in the community. <br />GIS analysis can be quite helpful in testing <br />this relationship and exploring patterns of <br />development that have occurred over time, <br />both relative to and independent of zoning <br />district requirements. Mapping individual <br />residential zoning districts and aggregating <br />data on the typical lot sizes, widths, and <br />setbacks within those districts allows us to <br />visualize and assess levels of nonconformity <br />across a community's residential districts <br />and to see patterns as they emerge. <br />Frequently, modern ordinance updates <br />require the adjustment of dimensional <br />regulations within residential districts, <br />including the creation of small -lot <br />residential districts to accommodate older <br />neighborhoods and denser development <br />patterns that were previously not <br />acknowledged through the zoning ordinance. <br />Further, when a community creates <br />new residential districts or proposes <br />adjusted dimensional regulations, testing <br />those regulations through GIS analysis of <br />existing development patterns allows it to <br />quickly gauge how many properties would <br />be brought into conformance with zoning, <br />versus how many properties would remain <br />or be made nonconforming under the new <br />regulations. In this way, dimensional testing <br />can provide a road map for what must be <br />changed through the zoning update process. <br />Design Testing <br />Many modern ordinances incorporate some <br />level of design standards to ensure that new <br />development achieves a high level of quality <br />and a consistency with the existing character <br />of the community. It is helpful to test them <br />to make sure that they are stringent enough <br />to ensure high -quality development and <br />flexible enough not be prescriptive. A good <br />'' CEI:iRfil PAR,: Al'r <br />13 <br />traaa <br />f� <br />i n L`�Lo 60 of <br />175 ©Pa aH <br />e <br />v�z�ac <br />exercise; specific provisions within the <br />design standards often emerge for discussion <br />based upon their application to existing <br />buildings, and the community's regard for <br />those buildings. For example, comparing the <br />proposed standards to an existing structure, <br />and measuring conformance to provisions <br />such as minimum percentage of transparency <br />or required roofline articulation, can trigger <br />some good discussion. The results of testing <br />may surprise stakeholders by revealing <br />that the design standards would indeed <br />accommodate a specific building. In others, <br />stakeholders may learn that the proposed <br />standards would actually prohibit a beloved <br />landmark or symbol of the community. <br />Frequently there is concern that <br />standards must be flexible enough to not <br />stifle architectural diversity and creativity <br />within the community. A good set of design <br />10 <br />[G] <br />1 III <br />6ll II 14 c! I"J9 <br />3.ia <br />1.1 1 1 <br />1 In fl I <br />1'r31 119a1A- 9 <br />nl <br />',,,',',I. '3 <br />a <br />air <br />91 1 g�1➢19 y: <br />0 L'lili '3 <br />l III©e a°ll,cu 'DT HI" t <br />1117 lt <br />fl1P i 11 <br />Ino'3o•1I <br />9v <br />'51.4,1M51 <br />3Fil$ <br />1'; 2A'DS( <br />set of design standards should regulate the <br />essential elements of building form, setting <br />reasonable standards that address elements <br />such as fenestration, facade articulation, <br />roofline form, and entry location. <br />To test design standards, select a <br />number of buildings currently within the <br />community, and use the proposed regulations <br />to evaluate their design. Could the buildings <br />be built again if the new standards were <br />adopted? This can be an ittuminating <br />L939 0 �e <br />- � c <br />u'na <br />n 55 <br />R-4 Zoning <br />Lots Brought Into Conformance at3,500sf j <br />Nonconforming <br />standards should accommodate a variety <br />of architectural styles and unique building <br />designs. Testing examples of contemporary, <br />modern, and traditional structures, and <br />showing that they would conform, can <br />alleviate such concerns. <br />Issue Testing <br />It is given that there will be unique, complex, <br />or particularly sensitive issues that arise <br />when a zoning ordinance is updated. <br />ZONINGPRACTICE 11.17 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4 <br />