Form-Based Codes

City of Johnson City: Planning Department 601 E. Main Street Johnson City, TN 37601 T (423) 434-6071 www.johnsoncitytn.org

City of Johnson City

Table of Contents

Alternatives to Overlay Zoning 1

Atlanta Regional Commission 1

Form-Based Code Overview 1

Euclidean vs. Form-Based Zoning 5

Case Study 6

Columbia Pike Findings 6

Columbia Pike Breakdown 8

Regulating Plan 8

Building Envelope Standards 11

Architectural Standards 13

Creating Form-Based 16

Hybrid Codes Versus Form-Based Codes 16

Form-Based Codes Checklist 17

SmartCode 18

Table 1 18-19

Planning Ahead 19

General Look at SmartCode Text 20

Table 2 21-22

Form-Based Codes i

Alternatives to Overlay Zoning

Atlanta Regional CommissionAtlanta Regional Commission alternative suggestions to overlay design:

1) Apply the restrictive standards everywhere (not limited to overly district) 2) Private covenants

a. encourages developers to impose covenants and review the residents them-selves rather than have Design Review Board

b. however, the covenants may only run for 20 years and the only way to enforce may be for property owners to sue for damages

3) Creating small Euclidean zoning (which may increase the complexity of zoning)4) Special Exceptions (best if used when standards are less restrictive than underlying

zoning district)

Form-Based Codes “Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?” by Jason T. Burdette

• Focus is physical design rather than use • In contrast to the more traditionally Euclidean zoning, Form-Based is more flexible, focusing

on what has been deemed as having a heightened importance (example: building appear-ance’s affect on the facing street)

• Graphic illustrations are heavily relied upon to relay to potential developers what is expected of them

• Focusing, traditionally, upon height regulations, space between buildings, and alignment, research suggests that Form-Based Codes lead to a more predictable development plan; whereas Euclidean zoning has been characterized as unpredictable.

• The theory is to allow the market determine the use. However, there is some room for influ-ence (such as: commercial strip to consist of buildings between two and six stories closely abutting the street which will most likely produce retail on the bottom floor and residential on the remaining)

• Charretteo Process to bring community’s vision into fruition by establishing a physical plan o Experienced code practitioners lead stakeholders (particularly in achieving feasible

goals)o Participating community members are given maps and divided into work groups

Form-Based Codes 1

o Practitioners also help facilitate a mutual meeting ground (for residents, major insti-tutions, government officials, developers, and builders)

o Finally, the physical plan must be codified • Typically, code-based involves three aspects and one optional aspect: Regulating Plan,

Building Envelope Standards, Definitions, and the optional Architectural Standards• Regulating Plan

o Provides a coding key and specific character of each building o Distinguished from a zoning map, the regulating plan gives specific details sur-

rounding ALL streets and blocks in the proposed area. o Furthermore, the Regulating Plan goes beyond traditional zoning maps by including:

property lines, a “required building line,” a street tree alignment line, the location of public places such as parks and squares, as well as the predicted footprints of planned public buildings

o Regulating plan encourages the review of the entire community, not individual units o Regulating plan encourages efficiency; instead of going through pages of codes to

understand all the “in and outs” of what is allowed, the regulating plan/map is sim-pler.

o *Most significantly, the regulating plan outlines a specific plan in place and not just the different aspects allowed and disallowed.

o Examples: stacked flats, courtyard buildings, shop-houses, live-works, town-houses, detached villas, and high-rise towers

• Building Envelope Standards o Typically addresses height, siting, elements, and sometimes useso Regarding Height: generally reflects a minimum number which would be required to

maintain a street wall and also a maximum number beyond which would be out of context.

• With traditional zoning, developers would sometimes attempt the “cheat the system” by minimizing floor to ceiling heights to increase the number of floors. Through Form-Based this is avoided by implementation of “maximum-height-to-the-eave dimension and range of acceptable number of stories.”

• Also, minimum above grade dimensions can be added for different building types (example: ensuring town homes are high enough to give privacy)

o Regarding Siting: generally refers to the placement of a building in relation to sur-rounding buildings and fronting street. Also, can go into placement of parking lots, yards, building entrances, etc…

• Architectural elements may include: windows, doors, porches, stoops, bal-conies, and chimneys; regarding these aspects, the specifics concerning quantity, configuration, and size may also be included.

• While the philosophy of Form-Based zoning generally discourages specifi-cally allowing/disallowing a certain use, Form-Base does encourage mixed uses (retail stores on the bottom and residential above).

• Glossary: should include key terms utilized within the plan and comprehensive definitions• Architectural Standards: (optional at the discretion of local stakeholders) focuses primarily

on aesthetic features o Because of the subjective nature of aesthetic features, many local stakeholders are

weary of implementing these standards. o Generally regulated by homeowner’s association or community covenant

Form-Based Codes 2

o Although each community creates its own unique standards, some examples of architectural standards for a Form-Based approach are: regulation of roof materials and slopes, building materials and finishes, paint colors, and window and door de-tailing

• Four keys to Form-Basedo Ensure that design standards are clear and concise; also, that these standards are

objective and measurable o Keep the Form-Based permissive and neutral o The Form should be easily comprehended, with both simple language and supple-

mental graphics o Lastly, the process should be efficient, predictable, and information easily ascer-

tained. • Three Approaches

o The community may modify existing codes to incorporate the Form-Based stan-dards. (This method not encouraged; this may be time consuming in light of most traditional codes include the very aspects for which Form-Based directly contra-dicts)

o The community may elect to simply replace the more traditional code with the new Form-Based standards. (This method may be the most efficient route for some, but may also be the most controversial).

o Lastly, a community may wish to adopt a Form-Based code only in districts of ur-ban revitalization, allowing the overall existing framework to remain intact and modi-fying based upon individual communities’ needs. *See: Arlington County, VA; “paral-lel codes” in Columbia Pike District. Only when the codes in the Columbia District proved successfully were they implemented in other areas.

• Negative Aspectso Lack of standardizationo Comfort with using what is viewed as a more traditional approacho Possible gentrificationo Public weary of “urban agenda”

• Positive Aspectso increased community involvemento market oriented o better comprehension of the regulations (any citizen, idealistically, could read the

simple language of the code, analyze the graphical representation, and understand the meaning of the code)

o improved flexibility (developers save money by reaching a clearer understanding of what is expected and community stakeholders have more input in the process)

o the promotion of good urban designo enlarged community equityo proactive and encouraging approach, rather than a “knee jerk reaction” to a bad

occurrence o “Finally, the monetary value of buildings in neo-traditional developments resulting

from Form-Based Codes and similar design-based coding tend to increase at a greater rate than conventional developments. Home buyers are willing to pay a premium for traditional elements like connected street networks, smaller blocks, good pedestrian access, and proximity to mass transit” (Burdette, 48)

o A study in Miami, Florida discovered that three years after implementing a Form-Base Code: “the average land value per square foot had increased from $60 to

Form-Based Codes 3

$92; the average office leasing rates per square foot increased from $23-27 to $25-30; and the average retail leasing rates per square foot increased from $15-40 to $32-55”

• Suggestionso Introduce Form-Base first as a solution to land use issueso Standardize certain building types (example: define “mid-rise tower” versus a “de-

tached villa”)o Consider housing when implementing a Form-Based Code (some critics worry that

Form-Based would make living costs more expensive in traditionally less expensive neighborhoods, forcing former residents to relocate)

o Try to implement: compact footprints, a mixing of uses, pedestrian-focused forms, creating a sense of place, affording access and mobility, and providing an efficient control mechanism

Form-Based Codes 4

EUCLIDEAN ZONING FORM-BASED CODESSeparates Land Uses Allows for the mixing of uses. Considers use a

secondary factor in regulating development. Separates noxious uses as directed by the community vision and the market.

Leapfrog Development Permits and encourages compact, contiguous development based upon community vision.

Commercial Strip Development Enables vertical development, as opposed to long, single-story buildings.

Low-Density Development Allows for increased development density where appropriate.

Poor Accessibility Encourages compact, walkable developments. Enables community to plan for the pedestrian, as opposed to planning for the automobile.

Lack of Functional Open Space Enables communities to mandate civic-oriented places like parks and plazas.

Incomprehensible Ordinances The use of simple, graphic-based guidelines with minimal text allow for a more complete understanding of the regulation.

Inflexible Uses Regulations are flexible in that they permit use to change or adjust as needed over time with-out regulatory approval.

Form-Based Codes 5

Case Study

Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Findings• Suburb of 190,000 residents (as of 2003)• Home to both the Pentagon and Washington Reagan National Airport • Columbia Pike: district located within Arlington County

o Ethnically diverseo 3.5-mile traffic-clogged arterial roado Commercial strip development (fast food, restaurants, and apartment complexes

with excessive parking)o Planning had not been much considered beyond “a thoroughfare for moving traffic

through Arlington); limited focus on quality for local residents o No major construction projects in over 40 yearso Retail: not diverseo Housing: older buildings with limited amenities

• Planners decided to implement Form-Based Code• Community members gave input on their vision

o Easily “walkable”o Variety of retail, mix uses and mix incomeso Diverse and affordable housingo Control the scale, fit and form o Suburban to urban

• The plan identified 4 districts for development: a town center, a village center, a neighboring center and a western gateway district.

• The Form-Based Code covered:o Building location (regulating plan)o Building form (envelope standards)o Architectural and Streetscape standards (the previously mentioned optional ap-

proach) • The effects:

o Approval time for developers became quicker (30 days for smaller projects and 60 days for larger projects)

Accredited to the availability of information (developers knew operational parameters in advance)

Developers who could not or would not meet guidelines knew to not waste time in the application process

o Incentives were offered to local developers Planners developed a consolidated parking strategy

• Previously, buildings were required to maintain a certain number of parking spots based upon the size of the building.

Form-Based Codes 6

• Now, a district-based strategy ensures parking “within 600-foot walk of any new development”

o Funding: arranged by Arlington leaders to pay for the costs of parking, street con-struction and other infrastructure elements.

Tax Increment Public Infrastructure (TIPI)- up to 85% tax revenues gener-ated by new projects within Columbia Pike Form-Based District would be reinvested into the project.

• In considering disbursement: type of development, expected com-munity benefit, ability of project to benefit from public infrastructure

Rehabilitation Tax Exemption- to encourage development for the smaller property owners, the owner’s property taxes remain at pre-development level for 5 years.

Trust Fund: $ 7 million aimed at maintaining affordable housing • Conclusion: In 2003, Columbia Pike had over $300 million in new development projects.

Form-Based Codes 7

Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Breakdown

Regulating Plan

The Columbia Pike Urban Design Charrette in cooperation with citizen planning workshops created the Regulating Plan in order to organize the growth of

the Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District in Arlington County, Virginia.

The plan specifically targets the nature of each lot within the context of surrounding lots and streets.

Form-Based Codes 8

I. Regulation Plana. Purpose

i. Principal tool for implementationii. Identifies basic physical characteristics

b. Blocks/Alleysi. All lots share frontage line with the streetii. If a block, must interrupt the block face if more 400 feet in length; ac-

ceptable interruptions include alley, common access easement, or a pe-destrian pathway. Within a single lot, 75 feet of frontage or less is ex-empt from these regulations. Those lots with over 250 feet of frontage must interrupt the block face.

iii. Alleys are required as part of redevelopment projects and must provide access to the rear of all lots.

iv. Curb cut: limited to no more than one per 200 feet of street frontage c. Buildings

i. A maximum building floor-plate is 30,000 square feet.ii. A maximum average length of 60 feet frontage without any breaks. iii. Consistent building standards of similar schemes shall front one another

across streets. d. Streetscape

i. Street trees will be planted at the time of development.ii. At the time of development, the developer is required to install side-

walks. Restrictions on materials and design listed. e. Parking

i. Encourage shared parking by creating a convenient, pedestrian-friendly environment. To achieve shared parking, incentives may be offered through the Tax Increment Public Infrastructure Fund.

ii. Reduce single-purpose reserved parking.iii. Reserved parking will be made possible through an annual payment set

by the County Manager. iv. Maximize on-street parking. v. Increase visibility/accessibility of parking.

f. Retail i. The goal is to have retail on the ground story of main street sites. ii. Lists are provided for what is considered primary retail (generally pro-

vides entertainment or leisure activities, and promote high walk-in cus-tomer counts) and secondary retail uses (generally provide personal or business services)

Form-Based Codes 9

Primary Retail

Art or antique shop, including art work, art supplies and framing materials

BakeryBook, stationary, or card storeClothing shopCoffee shopDay spaDelicatessen Department, furniture, home furnishings, or DrugstoreDry goods or notion storeDVD/Video tape record storeElectronics storeFlorist or gift shopGrocery, fruit or vegetable storeHardware, paint, or appliance storeHobby or handcraft storeHousehold applianceIce cream or confectionery storeIndoor theaters Interior decorating store (with incidental inte-rior service)Jewelry store

Leather goods/ luggageMeat or fish marketNewsstandNursery, flower, or plant serviceOptical store (operating as a commercial

enterprise with incidental eye exam)Pet shopRestaurantSecondhand or consignment shopShoe storeSpecialty food store (fish market, breads,

pastries, wine, etc.)Sporting goods store Variety store *The following users are permitted with spe-cial exception use permit AmusementsBowling alleyNightclubs and restaurants with live entertainment/dancingRestaurant with drive-through windowSelf-storage facilities

Secondary Retail

Animal Hospital or veterinary clinic within a fully enclosed structure

Automobile rental (retail functions only-no auto

servicing) or automobile accessories and supplies (excluding installation)

Bank or other financial institution (including check cashing)

Barbershop or beauty salonBlueprinting, Photostatting, or photo copy

serviceBusiness college operated as a

commercial enterpriseCatering establishmentClothes cleaning or laundry establishmentDance studioEmployment agenciesFilm processing or film exchangeHealth clubInsurance salesLocksmithMedical or dental offices, clinic or laboratories

Music conservatory or music instructionOffice (such as real estate broker, travel agency,

medical, etc..)Palmistry PawnshopPhoto studio Printing, lithographing or publishingPrivate postal serviceShoe or small appliance repairSign painting shopTailor or dressmaker Tax service *The following uses are permitted with

special exception use permit Audio-visual production studioCarpet and rug cleaning (excluding dying)Food delivery serviceMiniature golf courseMortuary or funeral homeUpholstery shopVehicle service establishment

Form-Based Codes 10

Building Envelope Standards

This portion of the plan regulates the buildings within the district. The goal is to create a vibrant public area through

utilizing “street space” principles. These principles include the basic limitations and requirements of construction.

Specifically addressed are: balconies, stoops and street walls. A Special Exception Process exists in order to allow a reasonable

approach to these restrictions.

Form-Based Codes 11

II. Building Envelope Standardsa. General Principles

i. Buildings are aligned and close to the street with active fronts. ii. Uniformity creates public space and community identity. iii. Property lines are physically defined by buildings or street walls. iv. Buildings are designed for city setting, not suburban areas. The build-

ings should face the general public area, not necessarily towards neigh-bors.

v. Service areas should be kept away from the street face. vi. Retail on the ground floor is greatly encouraged in order to keep the

area interesting and open to the public. vii. Encourage on street parking.viii. Parking lots should corroborate into shared parking.

b. Building Standardsi. Measure building heights by story.

1. Measuring by just height leads to manipulation of floor heights by developer.

2. Each building should be between 3-6 stories. ii. The ground floor should be at least 15 feet tall (measuring floor to ceil-

ing). iii. All stories above the ground level should be no taller than 14 feet. The

uppermost story should be at least 10 feet tall. iv. Aside from specially approved balconies, bay windows, stoops and

shop fronts, the Required Building Line is not to be encroached. c. Ground story façade shall have between 60% and 90% fenestration [an open-

ing in the building wall allowing light and views between interior and exterior. FENESTRATION is measured as glass area (excluding window frame elements with a dimension greater than 1 inch for conditioned space and as open area for parking structures or other un-conditioned, enclosed space)].

d. Upper story facades shall have between 30% and 70% FENSTRATION.e. Ground stories should be used for retail; entry doors should be spaced out no

greater than 60 feet within any site. f. Retail should not be located on any floors beyond the ground floor. Allowed

uses for upper floors are restaurants and business professional offices.

Form-Based Codes 12

Architectural Standards

Outside research refers to this section of Arlington County’s Form Based Code as “optional.” This approach deviates somewhat

from form based codes by exploring different aesthetic features. The Columbia Pike Revitalization District Code establishes an

Administrative Review Team which must approve a developer’s design and give assistance in order to achieve the code’s goals.

The intent is to preserve traditional features in order to stabilize a consistent form in the district.

Form-Based Codes 13

III. Architectural Standardsa. The materials selected and their placement should reflect traditional methods.

Simplicity and craftsmanship are preferred over ostentatious form. b. A list of satisfactory materials and techniques are provided on page 6.3.

i. A few examples of materials: brick and tile masonry, pre-cast masonry, split-faced block, native stone.

ii. A few examples of techniques: change in material should follow a con-structional logical, no “cake icing” finishes, properly detailed.

c. When designing roofs and parapets, the developer should be mindful of sur-rounding pitch, drainage, and materials. The approach should be consistent with surrounding area.

d. A list of satisfactory materials and techniques are provided on page 6.5.i. A few examples of materials: clay, tile, slate, dimensional asphalt shin-

gles.ii. A few examples of techniques critiqued: pitched roofs, overhangs,

parapet roofs. e. The Columbia Pike Form requires street walls to provide a clear street face. Ma-

sonry walls should specifically separate the public front from private realm (par-ticularly parking lots, trash cans, gardens and equipment). The “better side” should face the street.

f. A list of satisfactory materials and techniques are provided on page 6.7.i. A few examples of materials: native/regional stone, brick, brick.ii. A few examples of techniques: height requirements, climbing vine plan,

metal work. g. Rather than have a single pane of glass, buildings should have several panes,

divided by architectural features in order to prevent the “whole in the wall” ap-pearance.

h. A list of satisfactory materials and techniques are provided on pages 6.9-7.0i. A few examples of materials: black or gray window screens, doors

should be wood or steal, specialty windows may be stained or opales-cent

ii. A few examples of techniques: windows should be no closer than 30 inches to building corners, maximum office window pane size is 48 inches vertical by 40 inches horizontal, single panels of glass not larger than 6 by 4 for shop front windows, roll-down security gates are prohib-ited

i. Designers should try to avoid “visual pollution” sometimes created by excessive use of signs and certain designs. To avoid this undesirable outcome, signs should weather well and offer as a decoration.

j. Sign standards are listed on pages 6.12 and 6.13.i. A few examples: letters on wall sign shall not exceed 18 inches in height

or width, windows signs are permitted within the ground floor or second story office window, address signs must be placed at street entry door.

ii. Prohibited signs are listed on page 6.13.k. Purposes for lighting: nighttime visibility, crime deterrence and decoration. When

selecting lighting equipment, developers should consider materials which are: durable, energy efficient and weather well. To prevent “light pollution,” the de-sign of the equipment and intensity of the lighting should be considered.

Form-Based Codes 14

l. A list of satisfactory lighting standards and equipment are one pages 6.15 and 6.16. i. A few examples of lighting: direct lights downward and away from living

quarters, exterior lights at the front of a building should be mounted be-tween 6 and 14 feet above adjacent grade.

ii. Prohibited: flashing, traveling, animated or intermittent lighting.

Form-Based Codes 15

Creating Form-Based

Hybrid Codes Versus Form-Based Codes‣A growing trend among cities is to have “best of both worlds” approach, creating a hybrid version of form-based codes.

‣Typically, hybrid codes address setbacks, parking placement, building bulk, materials and archi-tectural features.

‣While implementing certain elements of a form-based code may prove beneficial, the hybrid ap-proach will not produce the outcome as a pure form-based code.

‣FBC (form-based codes) works to carefully pull in buildings, streets, and open space to work to-gether. Without careful attention to the relationship of all these aspects, a hybrid code could cause clashing, rather than cohesion, among land-use regulations such as planning, zoning, subdivision, public works and safety standards.

‣The lack of development in a hybrid code leaves the ordinance unpredictable, unlike the FBC. The hybrid form, like most non-FBC codes, cannot respond to the market without legislative help. Thus, the tendency to micromanage land use is an issue. Inevitably, zoning decisions become dis-cretionary.

‣Some cities look to integrating parts of FBC (instead of the entire concept) because the task of replacing the old code seems too extreme, worrisome, or perhaps too extreme.

‣Solution? Select a district to fully implement the code rather than implementing a FBC for the en-tire city. So, make the code hybrid in the sense that some zones are FBC (completely) while other, separate districts adhere to a more typical trend in ordinances such as Euclidean Zoning.

‣Where to start: first, code infill and greenfield areas.

➡In greenfield and infill areas, a FBC will generally define: the placement of buildings, streets and open spaces; standards which define the minimum and maximum stories of a building; the bulk and function of the building; and a review process.

➡Cities can either create a separate, independent ordinance for the FBC district or cities may chose to keep the FBC within the conventional city-wide ordinance, making minor ad-justments as needed.

‣Remember, anything less than a true FBC will not produce the positive outcome desired; the frus-tration of the public at such a hybrid may make a true FBC impossible in the future.

Form-Based Codes 16

‣Also, if a city is proposing implementation of a FBC in a designated district, the city should plan ahead and prepare a frame work to implement FBC in the remaining districts in the case that a FBC proves to be a desirable solution to city-wide zoning issues.

Form-Based Codes Check List Form-Based Codes Institute, http://www.formbasedcodes.org

Identifying Form-Based Codes✓Is the code's focus primarily on regulating urban form and less on land use?✓Is the code regulatory rather than advisory?✓Does the code emphasize standards and parameters for form with predictable physical out comes (build-to lines, frontage type requirements, etc.) rather than relying on numerical parameters (FAR, density, etc.) whose outcomes are impossible to predict?✓Does the code require private buildings to shape public space through the use of building form standards with specific requirements for building placement?✓Does the code require private buildings to shape public space through the use of building form standards with specific requirements for building placement?✓Does the code promote and/or conserve an interconnected street network and pedestrian- scaled blocks?✓Are regulations and standards keyed to specific locations on a regulating plan?✓Are the diagrams in the code unambiguous, clearly labeled, and accurate in their presentation of spatial configurations?

Evaluating Form-Based Codes✓Is the code enforceable?

➡Does the code implement a plan that reflects specific community intentions?➡Are the procedures for code administration clearly described?➡Is the form-based code effectively coordinated with other applicable policies and

regulations that control development on the same property?

✓Is the code easy to use?➡Is the overall format and structure of the code readily discernible so that users can easily

find what is pertinent to their interest?➡Can users readily understand and execute the physical form intended by the code?➡Are technical terms used in the code defined in a clear and understandable manner?➡Does the code format lend itself to convenient public distribution and use?➡Are the intentions of each regulation clearly described and apparent even to planning staff

and citizens who did not participate in its preparation?

✓Will the code produce functional and vital urbanism?➡Will the code shape the public realm to invite pedestrian use and social interaction?➡Will the code produce walkable, identifiable neighborhoods that provide for daily needs?➡Are parking requirements compatible with pedestrian-scaled urbanism?➡Is the code based on a sufficiently detailed physical plan and/or other clear community

vision that directs development and aids implementation?

Form-Based Codes 17

SmartCode The SmartCode is a well developed approach to creating a Form-Based Code. The re-search below is a brief overview of information condensed from of available materials from the Cen-ter for Applied Transect Studies. The SmartCode promotes growth that is compact, walkable, and contains mixed uses within a given area. The theory that drives the SmartCode is humans need different environments. In the past, planning has approached this concept with sprawled growth, meaning areas were rigidly developed to meet a certain use standard. Over time, these areas be-came incapable of blending with surrounding uses and areas. The new approach is to accept hu-mans desire different surroundings and, instead of segregating each community from one another, incorporate these different desire within a single community.

A Background Certain factors combined over the past few decades to create the “sprawled” approach to planning. These factors include: automobiles, cheap petroleum, cheap land, and generalized wealth. Based upon these societal trends, design standards incorporated a strict use separation policy (designated areas for residential, retail, schools, etc...). As a result, automobiles were rein-forced as more preferred than walking. As a result, society became accustomed to: strip malls, trite subdivisions, downtowns lacking in character, pedestrian unfriendly streets, increase in billboards, and overall sprawl. A quick, comprehensive outline is listed below.

REGIONAL SCALE COMMUNITY SCALE PLANS COMMUNITY SCALE PLANS COMMUNITY SCALE PLANS COMMUNITY SCALE PLANS COMMUNITY SCALE PLANS BUILDING SCALE

PLANS PLANS

A. Regional B. Community C. Transect C. Transect Standards

Sector Unit Zones Zones

0-1: Preserved None T-1 Natural T-1 Natural Open Sector Zone Zone

Open Lands

0-2: Reserved T-2 Rural T-2 Rural

Open Sector None Zone Zone

G-1: Restricted CLD: Clustered T-2 T-2 T-2 Growth Sector Land T-3 Sub-Urban T-3 Sub-Urban T-3 Sub-Urban

Development Zone Zone Zone Ex: hamlet or T-4 General T-4 General T-4 General

settlement Urban Zone Urban Zone Urban Zone

G-2 Controlled CLD T-2 Building Disposition Growth Sector T-3

Form-Based Codes 18

T-4 Building Configuration

New Development TND: Traditional T-3

New Development

Neighborhood T-4 Building Function

Development Ex: T-5 village, Density Calculations neighborhood

G-3 Intended TND T-3 T-3 Parking Standards Growth Sector T-4 T-4

T-5 T-5

Landscape Standards

RCD: Regional T-4 T-4 Center T-5 T-5

Development T-6 Urban T-6 Urban Sign age Standards Ex:regional center Core Zone Core Zone

or downtown

G-4 Infill Growth Infill TND T-3 T-3 Supplementary

Sector Traditional T-4 T-4 Modules

Neighborhood T-5 T-5 Development

Existing Development Infill RCD Regional T-4 T-4

Center T-5 T-5 Development T-6 T-6

SD Special Districts CB Civic Buildings

Other CS Civic Spac

e

*Table 1

Planning AheadThe SmartCode requires plans produced for: sectors, layout of communities, lots and building placement. Regional Plan: prepared by or on behalf of the Planning Department New Community Plan: prepared by the landowner, developer, or Planning Department Infill Community Plan: prepared by or on behalf of a builder or property owner Building Scale Plan: on behalf of builder or property owner

When implementing a SmartCode, consider creating a DDC (Development and Design Center).

As emphasized by Form-Based Codes, the SmartCode strongly encourages the use of a public charrette. In this process, include:

Form-Based Codes 19

urban designers, architects, landscape architects, planners, civil engineers, attorneys who are familiar with SmartCode

General Look at SmartCode Text • Authority• Applicability.

o Code.takes.precedence.when.in.conflict.with.other.ordinances,.except.Local.Health.and.Safety.Codes

• Defini?onso See.table.of.defini?ons.as.provided.by.the.Codeo Accept.common.meanings.when.not.specifically.defined.by.Codeo If.defini?ons.in.conflict,.accept.the.Code’s.defini?on

• Specifically.list.which.tables/graphs.are.legally.binding• Intent.of.the.SmartCode.(a.theme.which.is.consistently.referenced.throughout.the.Code)

o Regarding.the.region Retain.natural.infrastructure.and.visual.character.considering.the.topography,.

woodlands,.farmlands,.etc… Encourage.growth.(especially.within.infill.sec?ons) Distribute.affordable.housing.throughout.region.(job.opportuni?es.and.decenM

tralize.poverty). Provide.easy.alterna?ve.to.automobiles.

o Regarding.the.Community Compact,.mixedMuse,.pedestrian.friendly Provide.daily.living.ac?vi?es.within.walking.distance.of.homes Thoroughfares.designed.to.reduce.volume.of.traffic Civic.and.Commercial.ac?vi?es.centralized.in.downMtown Schools.within.walking.or.biking.distance Variety.of.parks,.squares,.and.playgrounds.dispersed.throughout.region.

• Block.and.Building.o Architecture.and.landscape.should.grow.from.local.climate,.topography,.history,.seUng.o Energy.efficient.methodso Civic.building.loca?ons.to.support.selfMgovernment.and.iden?fy.

• Processo Municipality.creates.CRC.(Consolidated.Review.CommiWee).

which.has.a.representa?ve.from.each.agency.of.permiUng.authority. also.includes.a.representa?ve.from.Development.and.Design.Center. also.includes.town.architect.

o In.the.case.of.no.warrants,.no.variance,.or.ONLY.warrants:.administra?ve.process Appeals.go.to.BZA

o Enforcement. If.devia?on.from.approved.plan.or.fail.to.complete.approval.process,.BAZ.retains.

right.to.halt.project,.remove.viola?on,.mi?gate.viola?on.or.issue.a.variance.• Warrants.and.Variances

o .CRC.final.word.on.whether.a.warrant.or.variance.is.needed

Form-Based Codes 20

Warrant:.not.consistent.with.Code.but.jus?fied.under.the.Intent.provision• CRC.determines.if.granted.upon.request

Variance:.devia?on.other.than.warrant• Legal.defini?on.(not.provided.in.research.materials).generally.a.use.or.

structure.that.is.allowed.because.it.was.already.in.place.before.regulaM?on.went.into.place.

Outline.CRC’s.authority Can.decide.if.public.hearings.are.an.approach.appropriate.in.given.municipality.

o Certain.aspects.are.excluded.from.warrants.and.variance.approaches..Meaning,.the.rule.is.the.rule,.no.excep?on.

Maximum.dimensions.for.traffic.lanes Required.provisions.for.rear.alleyways Minimum.Base.Residen?al.Densi?es. Permission.to.build.accessory.buildings. Minimum.requirements.for.parking.

o Zoning.Cycle 20.years.aaer.approval.of.Regional.Plan,.each.Transect.Zone.(with.the.excep?on.

of.TM1.and.TM2).will.be.immediately.rezoned,.to.the.next.respec?ve.zone.in.the.hierarchy,.aaer.public.hearing.and.legisla?ve.approval..

Form-Based Codes 21

T"1 Natural.Zone Lands)of)a)“wilderness”)condi4on)(including)those)unsuitable)for)devel"opment)

T"2 Rural.Zone Sparsely)seAled)lands)(ex:)agricultural,)grassland))some4mes)with)struc"tures)(ex:)farmhouse,)cabins,)villas))

T"3 SubMUrban.Zone Low)density)residen4al,)deep)setbacks,)roads)accommodate)the)natural)seHng)

T"4 General.Urban.Zone Primarily)residen4al;)building)types)range)in)form)as)do)uses,)setbacks)and)landscaping)

T"5 Urban.Center.Zone Higher)density)of)buildings)and)mixed)uses)(retail,)offices,)rowhouses)and)apartments);)characterized)by)wide)sidewalks,)street)trees,)and)buildings)set)close)to)sidewalk)

T"6 Urban.Core.Zone. Highest:)density,)height,)number)of)uses,)civic)buildings;)typically)larger)blocks,)number)of)street)trees)

*Special)Districts:)not)listed)above,)areas)that)by)building)func4on,)disposi4on)or)configura4on)cannot)conform)to)one)of)the)above)men4oned)zones.)

*Table 2

.

Form-Based Codes 22