Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

Development Codes for Built Out Communities By S. Mark White, AICP Since the advent of zoning, development codes have largely been used to harness the impacts of new growth. However. there remains tittle discussion about the role of development codes in com- munities where the supply of developable land is exhausted. Accordingly, many plan- ners working in matur~, developed neighbor- hoods administer codes that were written pri- marily for new growth. As build out occurs. regulatory emphasis shifts from public improvements to urban design, from infra- structure capacity to maintenance. and from controlling the pace of development to finding lost space. This .affects both the content of the code and the public process. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 5.5 percent of the land area in the United States is developed. Even so, many individual commu- nities (or areas of the community) are approach- ing build out, including the central cities of older communities and both the inner-ring and rapidly growing suburbs of major metropolitan areas. Built out areas range from infill neighbor- hoods to downtown, mixed use environments to suburban corridors and low-density residential neighborhoods. Each requires a different regula:. tory approach an~ has different stakeholders. Growing communities tend to.be more concerned about fiscal impacts and pace of growth while urban neighborhoods focus more on design and scale. These concerns bring different constituents to the table with different agendas. Growth-oriented codes paint development regulations on a fresh canvas while codes for built-out communities work within the existing urban context. This requires creative approaches to squeezing buildings and ancillary facilities onto small sites, finding new opportunities in the development of vacant buildings and empty parking lots, recognizing design pitfalls. and mediating housing and economic development needs with the demands of residential neighbor- hoods. Planners and code drafters must rethink conventional solutions to use compatibility. such as landscaping and buffers. and new tools such 62 as form-based zoning, transitional massing, and green infrastructure. This issue of Zoning Practice addresses the unique concerns of applying development codes to built out communities, including ensuring appropriate context. and managing th.e public process. The article also describes the development code issues facing communities as they approach build out, including tech- ~niques for prioritizing code issues, identifying tools and techniques to address those issues, a'nd shepherding the code through the devel- opment approval process. Specific issues include conventional and form-based zoning, urban design, infrastructure, and parking. CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILT OUT COMMUNITIES "Build out" typically refers to a situation where a development is approaching a jurisdiction's borders and the supply of large greenfield sites has diminished. "Greenfields" are new devel- opments on a parcel that are not surrounded by existing development. or relatively large parcels surrounded by partially developed sites. The section that follows describes the characteris- tics of built out communities. High percentage of developed land. Most of the land in a built out com.munity has been improved, cteared, or has gained access to infrastructure and utilities that will permit development in the immediate future. Most of the platted lots have been improved with buildings and parking areas. While there is no generally accepted threshold for build out, a community is generally considered built out when at least 80 percent of its land is devel- oped. Depending on the size of th~e_ciimmu; nity, opportunities for further.greenfi~ld devel- opment can .be lost at smaller thresfui.tds. Few large-scale greenfield sites. Greenfield sites typically require subdivision plat approval, the extension of utilities or urban infrastructure, and discretionary zoning approval such as a rezoning. As these sites begin to disappear the character of a commu- ZONING PRACTICE 8.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2