|
<br />enclaves, adaptive reuse, and stormwater man.
<br />agement. The result is a zoning typology that
<br />provides form-based standards for both tradi-
<br />tional and suburban contexts.
<br />The zoning districts allow sufficient densi-
<br />ties to implement the city's plan policies and
<br />accommodate future housing needs, subject to
<br />design criteria. These include garage apartment
<br />criteria and multifamily design standards that
<br />replicate the appearance and lot pattern of exist-
<br />ing single-family blocks. The design standards
<br />prescribe the minimum standards needed to a
<br />produce the desired building pattern without
<br />prescribed specific architectural styles.
<br />
<br />oping" districts (the "EDX" system). The estab.
<br />lished (E) districts used conventional mini-
<br />mum lot sizes while the developing (D) and
<br />redeveloping (X) districts replaced lot sizes
<br />with a provision requiring open space set-
<br />asides for dwelling units to preserve environ-
<br />mental features and to blend the urban edge
<br />into the surrounding open space through clus-
<br />tering. The city's zoning code expanded along
<br />with new growth. New "microzones" expanded
<br />the number of zoning district classifications
<br />from 21 zones in 1993 to 42 in 2004. The re-
<br />sult was a reliance on planned unit develop-
<br />ment in lieu of definite standards, with most
<br />
<br />
<br />~
<br />..,
<br />j
<br />0.
<br />'"
<br />o
<br />z:
<br />;:;
<br />,.
<br />~
<br />
<br />Height and massing requirements are
<br />included to avoid the "mansionization" of
<br />existing residential blocks.
<br />The corridor districts accommodate mod-
<br />erate to high densities. They also address an
<br />oversupply of commercial square footage and
<br />the dominance of big box retail structures.
<br />Underperforming corridors with existing gray-
<br />fields' are permitted to add housing.
<br />Boulder. Boulder, Colorado (population
<br />103,213), is a home rule city with a vibrant
<br />downtown and a history of innovative growth
<br />management systems, including an urban
<br />growth boundary and slow-growth policies. It
<br />is a college town in the rapidly growing region
<br />north of Denver. Because it also serves as a
<br />regional retail and entertainment destination,
<br />traffic in the city has increased.
<br />Prior to build out, the city's land.use poli-
<br />cie:1 focused on the retention of a defined edge
<br />and open space along the perimeter. Land-use
<br />criteria focused on controlling the environmen-
<br />tal impacts of edge development, reducing the
<br />coverage of new development along the edge,
<br />and controlling the pace of growth. The city
<br />used its codes to stabilize the core areas and
<br />provide compatible infill development.
<br />In 1971, the Boulder instituted a system
<br />.of "established," "developing," and "redevel-
<br />
<br />66
<br />
<br />property subject to discretionary review. The
<br />zaning code became complex, redundant,
<br />and inconsistent. It was difficultand time-
<br />consuming to administer and confusing to
<br />the public.
<br />By 20.04. the city had approached build
<br />out, and land-use policy was refacused on
<br />redevelopment. However, the zoning system
<br />did not keep pace with built up areas, which
<br />were treated as thaughthey were newly devel-
<br />oping. The city initiated its Land Use Code
<br />Simplificatian Project (LUCS) in 20.04 to con-
<br />solidate zoning districts. eliminate redundan-
<br />cies, and to more effectively address the char-
<br />acter of established development.
<br />Boulder's build out created new chal-
<br />lenges, including regional competition and
<br />commercial vacancies, a declining retail mar-
<br />ket, and high housing costs. Declining retail
<br />development led to municipal budget and
<br />service delivery challenges. In addition, new
<br />development spread to nearby communities
<br />with relatively lower housing costs.
<br />City land-use policy adjusted accordingly.
<br />Objectives included the retention of existing
<br />business, encouraging mixed use and TOO,
<br />instituting efficient permitting systems that
<br />enable a quick response to opportunities, and
<br />an increase in by-right develapment options.
<br />
<br />Lues addressed these standards through
<br />building form and design standards for edges
<br />and corridors, parking location standards, and
<br />mixed use zoning.
<br />The revised codes established a modu-
<br />lar appraach to its zaning regulati.ons that
<br />reduces the need for future amendments.
<br />The system organizes the zones based on
<br />three elements: uses, physical form, and
<br />land-use intensity (such as lot area per
<br />dwelling unit or floar area ratia). The system
<br />also .organizes regulatians by separate use
<br />districts, form or bulk districts, and land-use
<br />intensity districts. Combining the modules
<br />yields regulations that match current and
<br />desired future conditions, ranging from low
<br />density, single-use, semirural conditions to
<br />those that are mixed use, high density,and
<br />urban.
<br />Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, North Carolina
<br />(population 48.715), is also a university town
<br />with a history of innovative planning and land-
<br />use controls. The town began a code update
<br />in 2001 to implement a recently adopted com-
<br />prehensive plan. The town's land-use man-
<br />agement ordinance, adopted in 20.03,
<br />includes a number of tools that specifically
<br />address its built out condition, induding
<br />revised zoning districts, a flexible TOlD district,
<br />and updated parking standards.
<br />A successful feature of the new code is
<br />the use of neighborhood conservation dis-
<br />tricts (NCD). The NCD permits the establish-
<br />ment of special design standards to preserve
<br />and protect unique and distinctive in-town
<br />residential neighborhoods or commercial dis-
<br />tricts that contribute significantly to the char-
<br />acter and identity of the town. There is no
<br />maximum size but the districts can be as
<br />small as a single blockface. An NeD designa-
<br />tion can be initiated by the town councilor
<br />property owners.
<br />The tawn approved an NCD for its
<br />Northside district and has four additional dis-
<br />tricts on the drawing board. The Northside dis-
<br />trict contains approximately 190 acres. The
<br />district plan and the CD-l overlay zaning regu-
<br />lations establish a maximum primary height of
<br />2.0 feet and secondary height of 29 feet. A
<br />maximum building size of 2,000 square feet is
<br />established with an additional 500 square
<br />feet permitted 'by variance. Duplexes are pro-
<br />hibited because the neighborhood is predom-
<br />inantly single-family. The regulations establish
<br />standards for building orientation, parking,
<br />fencing. porches, and design details such as
<br />building materials.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 8.116
<br />AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6
<br />
|