2.0 HPSR 09-13-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r:.~rm-Based Zoning ,~Ilit'1'!t'~~I~ ~'~r~flTlltlti' ~~~.~~['!<tI.-1~l1 _Saturday { 5unday~ P~onday ~ i uesday , ~'~'ednesday Overview ~~~~~~ ~'~`~~ Page 1 of 2 Tuesday, April 2?, 2C?!`i4 Sessions gy P~egan Leth~is, ~£CP Workshops pP,q Senior Rcsear~h ,^;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 iistrict and San Francisco -are the products of development People that occurred based on an emphasis on physical form rather than on controlling uses. While the term "fornrbased codes" is around i'!a years old, the concept of basing regulation an form has been around r'or a while, 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-t;ased codes are highly illustrated and involve a signincant level of public participation. A panel of practitioners discussed ho~~~l farm-based zGninq codes seek to recapture a development pattern that focuses on "form" before "function." Because they separate uses into distinct districts, 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 il[ustrated r-orm; form-tsased CGdeS 1%dOrk to reconnect these tta~o areas and define a desirable fiorm for an area. ?n addition to having a direct ii'npact on shaping form, farm-based codes involve a much more extensive public partlCipatiGn prGCe55 thanche developirrent Gf a conventional code does. Tl~e chai•rL~tt'e process is the primary mechanism for community participation and input. Tf'ie gaol is to have citi°zens be fully engaged and involved in tine development process, sG that tyre have ownership Gver it. ?t also re- emphasizes the focus Gn physical farm of a place Gver tl~e specific uses. While examples of SGnoma, Hercules, and Petaluma, California, were presented as places that have adopted form-based codes, rural areas have also embraced these ;:odes, A prime example is 4~'GGdford Country, Kentuck}f, where a proposed 1Rral-Mara spurred the community tG undertai<c~ a vI'ii:1i'ri=i:te process and adopt aform-based Code. in additlDn, 'r.lst-belt" Citie'.5 lime Syracuse, IVeW ~fGi'!<; Sai'atGa cipringS, P+121~' fork; and Providence, i~hode island, have alsG adapted form-based codes. Paul Crawford, FAiC', of Crawford Mu!tari Pa. Clarl; presented the fallowing principles for form-based cedes: ,'dtOr {: ('roril a deilillnQ Sp:~%lal plttei'rR, ;,i.Ch aS %h° I ra(75eCt Ora .>}{SiP.n1 Ot neighborhoods; districts, and c,~;-ridcrs +s+ Cie-emphasize land use in fa~!or of bu'siding farm and t~~palogy 'emphasize mixed uses and mi>:ed use housing ~ t-GCI:~ Gr{ tI"ie St'reetSCape arld tt1C? pi3iJlIC realn't Conduct adesign-focused public participatiGn process CG create alarm-`;asea Ciide, Cr~3V;lfc:?rd SuaCresl.iro a flVe-Step approach: http://www.planning. org/conferencecoverage/2004/tuesday/formbased.htm 1 /3 /2005