|
<br />.
<br />
<br />Form-Based Development Codes
<br />
<br />By David Rouse, A/CP, and Nancy Zobl, AICP
<br />
<br />New development codes are emerging that focus on regulating physical form as an
<br />alternative to conventional Euclidean zoning.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The conventional zoning model in use through-
<br />out the United States is based on the separa-
<br />tion of residential, commercial, and industrial
<br />uses, density controls, and proscriptive stan-
<br />dards for key development attributes (e.g.,
<br />building setbacks and heights). The historical
<br />antecedents of this model include the 1926
<br />Supreme Court decision in the case of Village of
<br />Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co., which legitimized
<br />the separation of uses to protect the public
<br />health, safety, and welfare, and the 1916 New
<br />York City zoning code, which established
<br />dimensional requirements to permit light and
<br />air and prevent overcrowding. Published in the
<br />1920S, the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act
<br />was ultimately adopted by all so states. It is still
<br />the basic model used by jurisdictions to regu-
<br />late development, although many features have
<br />been added to local codes over the years to
<br />address emerging issues (e.g., overlay districts
<br />and environmental performance standards).
<br />In recent decades, dissatisfaction with
<br />the perceived effects of conventional zoning
<br />on urban and suburban landscapes has
<br />grown among citizens and practitioners.
<br />While a variety of factors have worked
<br />together to promote development trends,
<br />such as the loss of traditional urban form
<br />and proliferation of commercial strip devel-
<br />opment and "cookie cutter" subdivisions,
<br />zoning has been identified as a primary cul-
<br />prit. On the one hand, the separation of
<br />uses and limits on density have contributed
<br />to excessive consumption of land (suburban
<br />sprawl). On the other, zoning's lack of a
<br />positive prescription for physical form has
<br />facilitated the intrus.ion of incompatible
<br />development types into traditional urban
<br />neighborhoods and districts.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />In reaction to these trends, new, form-
<br />based approaches to development regulation
<br />are being proposed as alternatives to conven-
<br />tional zoning. These approaches can be chanic-
<br />terized as prescriptive or contextual in nature.
<br />Prescriptive approaches seek to codify the phys-
<br />ical parameters of development based upon a
<br />normative position on ideal urban form (typi-
<br />cally derived from the pre-World War II model of
<br />traditional development). Contextual
<br />approaches, on the other hand, look to the
<br />characteristics of the surrounding environment
<br />for guidance in regulating the physical form of
<br />new development. Collectively, these
<br />approaches are referred to as form-based devel-
<br />opment codes. A basic premise of form-based
<br />development codes is that the regulation of
<br />physical form (not use) is the key to producing a
<br />better built environment.
<br />The following text describes the basic
<br />features of three different types of form-based
<br />development codes: Form-Based Coding,
<br />Form District Zoning, and the SmartCode. For
<br />each type, a series of questions is posed
<br />regarding its application in regulations
<br />adopted by local jurisdictions, based upon a
<br />selected case study. These questions are:
<br />. How comprehensive is its application?
<br />Does it address the entire community or
<br />discrete areas within the community? Does
<br />it replace or supplement conventional zon-
<br />ing systems?
<br />. How does it deal with the regulation of use,
<br />the focus of conventional zoning?
<br />. How is it working in practice?
<br />Form-based development codes are an
<br />emerging concept implemented by a small
<br />but increasing number of jurisdictions to
<br />date. Because those codes are relatively
<br />
<br />new, practical experience in administering
<br />them is limited. As interest in alternatives
<br />to conventional zoning continues to grow,
<br />more communities will implement form-
<br />based regulatory approaches. This article
<br />describes the initial experiences of some of
<br />these communities, with !he proviso that
<br />the advantages and disadvantages of dif-
<br />ferent approaches will become clearer as
<br />they are further tested in practice~
<br />
<br />FORM-BASED CODING
<br />Form-based coding emerged out of the New
<br />Urbanist movement of the late 1980S and
<br />early 1990s. New Urbanism is based on the
<br />concept of walk able neighborhoods and small
<br />towns, with the compact, mixed-use develop-
<br />ment patterns of the pre-World War II era as
<br />models. Form-based coding is a regulatory
<br />approach designed to shape the physical
<br />form of development while setting only broad
<br />parameters for use. According to Peter Katz,
<br />former director of the Congress for the New
<br />Urbanism and a proponent of this approach,
<br />form-based codes focus on what is desirable
<br />rather than what is forbidden, the underlying
<br />principles having their foundation in a vision
<br />or plan developed through community work-
<br />shops and charrettes. Regulatory standards
<br />prescribe physical elements, such as building
<br />height, setbacks, lot size, parking location,
<br />etc., to achieve quality design in context with
<br />surrounding areas. They also seek to integrate
<br />private development with the public realm,
<br />typically addressing the character of civic
<br />buildings, public streets, and civic spaces.
<br />In theory, form-based coding is a com-
<br />prehensive, communitywide approach
<br />designed to achieve better physical devel-
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 2
<br />
|