2.0 HPSR 09-13-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

opment patterns throughout a city or region. In practice, current applications are limited to specified geographic areas due to the newness of the concept, the inten- sive effort needed to develop aform-based code, and political environments that are slow to accept change. California communi- ties have been among the first to adopt the concept, primarily as ah implementation mechanism for the specific plan, a provi- sion in the state code authorizing legisla- tively adopted development plans for geo- graphic subareas of a community. Two notable examples include the Pleasant Hill BART Station Form Based Code in Contra Costa~County; California, and the Regulating Plan for the Central Hercules Plan in Hercules, California. Elsewhere in the country, a number of communities are developing or adopting form-based codes (e.g., Iowa City, Iowa, Woodford County, Kentucky, and Chicago). One recent example is Arlington County, Virginia, which has implemented aform- based code to revitalize Columbia Pike, an older commercial corridor. Spacial conditions: within 100 feet of Main Street required building Ilne; Wakefield to Four-Mlle Run, maximum v lour stories e Maximum ~ six stories~s- d Minimum'' three stories Within 40 feet of local street lot ar existing single-family uae; maximum 32 feet eaves or parapet height Z +a i d ,. aro+ aalaMU The Columbia Pike Initiative is a long- range economic development vision to create a vibrant commercial corridor and urban center along a 3.5-mile section of Columbia Pike. The Pike had experienced little development activ- ity in the past qo years, despite its location in the high-growth Capital Area. The Columbia Pike Master Plan was adopted in zooz after numerous public chamettes. The subsequent Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Form-Based Code was prepared by Geoffrey Ferrell Associates (as subconsultants to Dover, Kohl & Partners) and adopted in February zoo3. This code was designed to implement the vision of the Columbia Pike Initiative, including creation of apedestrian-oriented, mixed-use district with a variety of retail, resi- dential, and office uses. The new code contains three main com- ponents: the regulating plan, building enJe- lope standards, and architectural and streetscape standards. Analogous to a zoning map but much more detailed in its prescrip- tion of physical form, the regulating plan iden- tifies the building envelope standards to be applied to specific properties, which are coded by their street frontage (Main Street, Avenue, Local, and Neighborhood). The build- ingenvelope standards establish basic param- Street walls required on RESioExnu allay and common lot Ilnes; NOME seven feet maximum height occuPAnoNs aESloEtmu NOME OCWPQIONS eters for building form, including height, set- backs, and fenestration. They also set broad parameters for mixed uses allowed on the first and upperftoors, except that the neighbor- hood frontage sites are primarily restricted to residential uses with some allowances for home offices. The form-based code is applied as an overlay option to the existing zoning districts. Developers are provided a variety of incen- tives to select this option, including an expe- dited permitting process for developments of go,ooo square feet or less (larger develop- ments are subject to special exception review), financial incentives such as modified tax increment financing and rehabilitation tax credits, and relaxed parking requirements. Accordingto Richard Tucker, county plan- nerforthe Columbia Puce Initiative, the develop- mentcommunity has expressed considerable interest in the form-based code since its adop- tion. Developers, architects, and members of the Home Builders Association have praised the clarity ofthe code acid the streamlined review process. Several pending mixed-use develop- ment proposatsare the direct result of the form- based code. Citizens also supportthe new code, having been directly involved in shaping it through several design chamettes. Despite the appar- entinitial successes, Tucker notes some chal- ZONINGPRACTICE 05.04 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3 lenges related to the PAPMNG newness of the code. ACCESSORY " UNm Issues tend to arise as proposals are submit- ted by developers who a s- have problems with the standards of the code,