2. HRSR 09-13-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r:.~rm-Based Zoning t~~ic~t i~~;~t~ 9'~I,~a~it;;' :~~~;f-t:i<i~.i{a~~ ;.. rxr4s~:~rg~ ~~~~, _Saturday ; Sunday I I~9onday .Tuesday L1'ednesday Overview Fa~~-_~~~~ ~~~~~~ Page 1 of 2 Sessions + uesday, /~prll 27, 2C)ga By f~ega~o Le~~is, AFCP Workshops RPA Senior Rese~rrci~ .;ssv:;iate Special Events Many of the places thought of as "great" are areas that developed prior to the Hot Topics adoption of Euclidean zoning regulations. These places -representative examples are Chicago 's Loop District and San Francisco -are the products of development People that occurred based on an emphasis an physical form rather than on controlling US2S. V~lhile the term "form-based codes" is around ;'<< years old, the concept of basing regulation on form has been around ter a white, under a variety of names - performance zoning and district-based zoning being among the "ancestors" of form- based zoning. In contrast to conventional zoning codes, form-based codes are highly illustrated and involve a significant level of public participation. A panel of practitioners discussed hove form-based zoning codes seek to recapture a development pattern that focuses on "form" before "function." Because they separate uses into distinLt districi:s, conventional zoning regulations often make it difficult to create mixed-use communities, a goal many planners pursue. This separation has also resulted in many instances in disconnecting planning and urban design. By presenting the principles and concepts in an illustrated corm, farm-based codes work to reconnect these ttaro areas and define a desirable farm for an area. In addition to having a direct impact on shaping form, form-based codes involve a much more ea~tensive public participation process than the development of a conventional code does. The charrette process is the primary mechanism far community participaticn and input. The goal is to have citizens be fully engaged and involved in the development process, so that the lave a4FVner°ship over it. it aisa re- emphasizes the focus on physical farm .of a place aver the specific uses. 1h'hile examples of Sonoma, Hercules, and Petafurna, Callfarnia, ~a~ere presented as places that have adopted form-based codes, rural areas have also embraced these ':odes. Fi prime example is Vlaodford ~~ountry, F;entudcy, where a proposed Wai-Mart spurred the can~munity to undertake a c!•rarrette process and adopt aform-based code. In addition, "rust-bE:lt" cities like Syracuse, New 1'as-k; Saratoga Springs, flew Park; and Providence, Rhode island, have aisa adapted form-based codes, Paul Cravvford, r=AiCP, of Crawford l~!u!tari ~. Clari: presented the fallowing principles for form-based codes: ~ ltVOr k from a defi3lirlg 5}~ri%lai pattern, SUCH a5 the Tral'tSeCt ar a system of neighborhoods, districts, and corridors ~ De-emphasize land use in favor of E>uiiding form an:a t}rpaloay Emphasize mixed uses and mi>:ed use dousing ~ Focus cn ttio streetscape and the public realm Conduct adesign-focused public participation process "('a creat;~ a farm-based cede, Cre?~~~fcrrd suggested alive-step approach: http://www.planning.org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm 1 /3 /2005