FORM-BASED CODES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: A CASE STUDY PRIMER

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Historic Preservation

by LaLuce David Mitchell

Department of Historic Preservation The School of the Art Institute of Chicago August, 2011

Thesis Committee: Advisor: Eleanor Gorski, Commissioner, Commission on Chicago Landmarks Reader: Carol Wyant, Executive Director, Form-Based Codes Institute Reader: James Lindberg, Director of Preservation Initiatives, Mountains/Plains Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Abstract Beginning soon after the end of World War II, a combination of government housing policies and higher personal incomes resulted in the creation of sprawling development that discounted the importance of older main streets and neighborhoods in favor of newness and autocentricity. Since the early 1980s, the pendulum has begun to swing in the opposite direction with the popularization of New Urbanism and the return of the affluent to walkable city-centers. While this signals a renewed interest in the historic buildings that make up these older urban areas, increased investment also carries the risk of destruction of historic fabric in the name of progress and rising wealth. A new movement has developed in the last ten years that aims to codify the stated aims of New Urbanism walkability, density, and enhancement of the public realm into the zoning codes that legally regulate the construction of building forms and massing, dubbed Form-Based Codes. What are the potential opportunities and dangers that the implementation of these new zoning codes present to the Historic Preservation movement and the historic fabric that it seeks to protect? This thesis explains what form-based codes are and why they are of importance to preservationists and then explores the potential implications of the form-based codes movement on historic preservation. In order to illustrate the results in practice, the thesis presents a series of three case studies, each of a city that has enacted a full form-based code or smaller-scale formbased zoning provisions that govern a district with significant historic fabric. Based on planning reports and a series of personal interviews, the case studies address new codes in Denver, Charleston, and Riverside, Illinois. The three codes differ in the level of their sensitivity to historic resources and the extent to which preservation-minded individuals were involved in drafting them. Based on its conclusions, the thesis makes recommendations to guide preservationists in more informed involvement in the development of form-based codes in historic areas in the future, in order to provide for the maximum possible protection of historic resources.

Acknowledgments Completion of this Thesis would not have been possible without an energetic and passionate interest by members of the Form-Based Codes community in Chicago and across the United States. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Eleanor Gorski. While always extremely busy at her post as the Commissioner of the Chicago Landmarks Commission, she on multiple occasions made the time to sit down with me and discuss the minute details that allow me to develop this thesis to its best potential. She also provided much-needed encouragement at many points along the way. I would also like to thank my two thesis readers. Carol Wyant, who is based here in Chicago and is Executive Director of the Form-Based Codes Institute, provided useful insight into the realities of how form-based codes are developed and passed into law, as well as into the philosophies and history behind the movements beginnings. Jim Lindberg, of the Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Denver, is one of very few preservationists that has yet thought deeply about the implications form-based codes could have for preservation. He also has hands-on experience in the development of the recentlyimplemented code in Denver. His perspective of how and when codes are developed was extremely valuable, as were his very extensive comments during the multiple revisions of this paper. I would also like to thank the following individuals for taking the time for interviews conducted for this paper: Lee Einsweiler of Code Studio, Robert Gurley of the Preservation Society of Charleston, Steven Oliver of the City of Denver, Charlie Pipal of the Riverside Historical Commission, Kathleen Rush, formerly of the Village of Riverside, Arista Strungys of Camiros, Ltd., and Jeremy Wells of the City of Denver. I would like to thank both the heads of the Historic Preservation department during my tenure there for their support and inspiration: Anne Sullivan and Vince Michael. Lastly, I would like to thank my mother Angelika and sister Celia for helping me to get to the point in my life where I could do something like this. And, finally, I would like to thank the most incredible person in my life, who was my guiding star as I worked through the final stages of this lofty endeavor, extending the use of her brilliance and inquisitiveness when mine gave out, my amazing girlfriend Alena.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. The Problems with Conventional Zoning . Introduction . . . . . . A Brief History of Zoning . . . . The Resurgence of Cities and the Rise of New Urbanism Organization of the Paper . . . . Review of Literature . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . , . . . . . .

. . . . . . , . . . . . .

6 6 7 14 16 17 20 20 20 22 27 29 32 36 36 37 39 44 44 46 46 48 48 52 54 56 58 61 61 65 65 66 67 68 69 70 70 72 74

Chapter 2: Seeds for Change: New Urbanism , , , What is New Urbanism? . . . . . The Founding of New Urbanism . . . . New Urbanist Projects . . . . . Theoretical Basis of New Urbanism . . . . Marketing Claims of New Urbanism . . . . Relationship between New Urbanism and Historic Preservation

Chapter 3: Seeds for Wide-Spread Change: The Premise of Form-Based Codes What are Form-Based Codes? . . . . . . Marketed Advantages of Form-Based Codes . . . . . History of Form-Based Coding . . . . . . The SmartCode: Overview . . . . . . . The SmartCode: Sections . . . . . . . Form-Based Coding and Master Plans . . . . . Development of Form-Based Codes . . . . . . Types of Form-Based Codes . . . . . . . Typical Sections of a Custom Form-Based Code . . . . Methods of Adoption . . . . . . . . Truth or Marketing? . . . . . . . . General Criticisms of Form-Based Coding . . . . . Architectural and Aesthetic Pre-Associations . . . . Chapter 4. Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation Sections and Specific Regulations . . . Dangers Posed to Historic Preservation. . . Front-loaded public process . . . Creation of a homogeneous environment . Freezing a place in time . . . Tendency to create inauthenticity . . Can be made to prescriptive for preservation Danger in too much contextual development . Less incentive to keep old buildings . . Inclusion of nonconforming use regulations . Use of historicist styles . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for performance requirements . . . . Opportunities Presented for Historic Preservation . . . A way for preservation communities to make their interests law Property Rights argument . . . . . Regaining of historic character . . . . Regaining of historic features . . . . . Similar to historic survey process . . . . Chapter 5. Case Studies of Form-Based Codes in Historic Cities Denver . . . . . . . . Community description . . . . Impetus for the new code . . . . Code development process . . . . Inclusion of historic preservation stakeholders . Review of code . . . . . Charleston . . . . . . . Community description . . . . Impetus for the new code . . . . Code development process . . . . Inclusion of historic preservation stakeholders . Review of code . . . . . Riverside . . . . . . . Community description . . . . Impetus for the new code . . . . Code development process . . . . Inclusion of historic preservation stakeholders . Review of code . . . . . Chapter 6. Conclusion: A Guide for Preservationists Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74 76 76 78 79 81 81 84 84 84 86 87 91 93 94 94 94 99 100 103 104 104 104 107 107 108 110 116 123 129 132 135 136 141 143 144 157 173

Bibliography .

Appendix A: Charter of the New Urbanism

Appendix B: Sample Form-Based Code Micro-Scale Survey Form Appendix C: Comparison of Regulating Plans Peoria, Illinois . . . . Benicia, California . . . Appendix D: Example Form-Based Standards Peoria, Illinois . . . . Benicia, California . . . Denver, Colorado . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Figures

Figure 1. New York City Zoning Districts . . Figure 2. Typical Suburban Sprawl . . . Figure 3. Seaside, Florida . . . . Figure 4. Civano, near Tucson . . . Figure 5. Crawford Square, Pittsburgh . . Figure 6. Albemarle Square, Baltimore . . Figure 7. The Transect . . . . Figure 8. The Form-Based Code of Seaside . . Figure 9. Kendall City Center . . . Figure 10. Columbia Pike . . . . Figure 11. Celebration, Florida . . . Figure 12. East Colfax Street Plan, Denver . . Figure 13. Calhoun Street Special Area Plan, Charleston Figure 14. Riverside, Illinois, Zoning Code Rewrite .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 12 23 24 25 26 29 41 42 43 69 85 97 106

Chapter 1. The Problems with Conventional Zoning

Introduction Historic Preservation organizations are forever and always in the crosswinds of change. For the past fifty years, American urban and suburban design has been dominated by the automobile and a relentless expansion of single-family houses into former farmlands. In the last two decades, America has begun to realize that this is not a sustainable growth strategy. As a result, America has begun to look back at the places that are already inhabited and determine ways to grow within these older places. While there have always been writers and urbanists that have understood and professed the value intrinsic in older neighborhoods and city centers, these places have up until recently, aroused little interest in investment by mainstream developers so preservationists have been able to work there relatively unhindered. With promise of new investment by developers, there is hope that long-neglected structures that preservationists lost hope for may be refurbished. However, there is no guarantee that new investment in older places translates into new investment in the older urban fabric it could mean inappropriate new construction in old contexts that have gradually and carefully been formed over decades. It is the charge of historic preservationists in the twenty-first century, then, to be knowledgeable about this new development paradigm and work to represent the best interests of older places in order that they retain their character while allowing investment and, where appropriate, be open to carefully managed new development. 6

This thesis is a primer meant to educate preservationists about a new type of zoning called Form-Based Codes that has both positive and negative implications for historic preservation. On one hand, it could allow preservation to gain a stronger and more legitimate position in the local regulatory structure; on the other hand, it holds the risk of potentially encouraging development that is not true to the character of a historic neighborhood or that could overwhelm its older fabric. In general, form-based codes are a very positive development for the future of urban design and it serves preservation far better to support this new paradigm and work within its bounds rather than oppose it. However, form-based codes are not perfect either in theory or execution up to this point, and so this thesis takes a supportive viewpoint but one that is critical enough to point out flaws in the two movements themselves and their interaction with each other. A Brief History of Zoning In order to understand why form-based codes are a positive development for urban design, it is best to begin by understanding the lineage of modern conventional or traditional zoning codes, the original intents behind their creation, and the consequences that have occurred as a result of their widespread adoption. The earliest government regulation of building massing and size was in the form of height limits, such as those imposed by Washington, DC in 1899 and Boston in 1904 that restricted the maximum height of buildings built in different districts of the city. In 1909, Los Angeles passed an ordinance that divided the city into commercial and residential districts. 1 The first comprehensive zoning ordinance was that of New York City, passed into law in 1916. In this era in New York, land values were increasing quickly, and so buildings were becoming ever taller in order to take full advantage of the lands development potential. Blocks

of tall buildings increasingly cast the streets below into shadow for much of the day. In addition, with an expanding manufacturing base in Manhattan, the upscale retailers of Fifth Avenue were worried about infringement by the garment district moving ever nearer. The new zoning code was passed to address both of these concerns. The ordinance stated its goal thus: Regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected and regulating and determining the area of yards, courts and other open spaces, and regulating and restricting the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specific uses and establishing the boundaries of districts for the said purposes. 2 It established nine use districts, which specified what type of use could be present on each lot in the city. The code also included an overlay district that assigned each lot in the city a ratio which represented the allowable building height on the lot in proportion to the width of the street 3 (See Figure 1.) This set of ratios essentially defined a three-dimensional pyramidal envelope on each building lot that represented the allowable building area. The literal application of this zoning provision resulted in the well-known setback or wedding cake skyscrapers that were commonly constructed in New York City from the 1920s into the 1950s. 4 The New York Zoning Code was written by Figure 1. The New York City Zoning Ordinance specified use districts based an attorney, Edward M. Bassett, who specifically on the ratio of allowable building height to street width, which was meant to defined each provision of the code as justifiable in the regulate bulk moreso than density. Source: Burdette defense of some aspect of public health, safety, or welfare, and thus as an extension of police power.

This made the code legally defensible under the precedents of the day. 5 Seeing the potential of zoning to provide predictability in land development and stability in land values, communities across the country quickly adopted zoning ordinances of their own, all generally modeled after the New York City ordinance. By 1923, 218 communities had adopted zoning ordinances, with jurisdiction over 22 million people. 6 In order to legitimize and standardize the legal framework on which this flood of new codes was based, in 1923 the federal government developed the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, a model law that each state could take and adopt in order to officially legalize the adoption of zoning ordinances by municipalities in the state, thereby assuring municipalities that their new ordinances were safe from any legal challenges. 7 The whole concept of zoning met its legal challenge in 1926 under the landmark case Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. The village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland, had in 1922 passed a new zoning ordinance. In 1911, well before that ordinance was adopted, the Ambler Realty Company had purchased sixty-eight acres of land that it intended to put to use for industrial purposes, since it was adjacent to the rail line into Cleveland. The new village zoning code restricted the use of that land by allowing only forty acres of the plot (sixty percent) to be used for industrial purposes. The remainder was zoned for apartments and duplexes. At the time, land in industrial use was worth four times as much per acre as land in residential use, so these new restrictions on the land decreased the value of Amblers land by twenty-nine percent. Ambler Realty sued the Village, claiming that the zoning ordinance deprived the company of property without due process. The trial court agreed, stating that the Euclid zoning ordinance was an improper use of police power. The case progressed to the US Supreme Court,

which reached a decision that zoning was an effective method of nuisance control and a reasonable exercise of police power. 8 As a result of this decision, zoning was legally upheld and separation of residential uses from other more noxious uses was taken as something of a basic human right. Interestingly, neither New York Citys nor Euclids zoning ordinances completely outlawed a mix of uses. In New York, one of the nine use types was an unrestricted zone, where uses could be mixed without regulation. In Euclid, the set of use zones was pyramidal, with the most restrictive zone allowing single-family residential uses only with the remaining zones slowly adding more uses to the mix, with the least restrictive allowing any type of use, including industrial. Typically, zoning codes in place since the mid-twentieth century have been less inclusive of mixed-use zones, instead providing mutually-exclusive zones. There are many reasons for this, among them the perceived liability issues raised by having industry next to residences. 9 Since the mid-twentieth century, new development has consisted mostly of large tracts of single-family homes built far from city centers and connected to them by high-speed roadways. There are several reasons for the spread of this type of development. Beginning in the 1930s, a series of government actions, programs and laws incentivized new single-family home construction: The 1931 Presidents Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, where the conclusion was made that building of new and better homes in rural areas should be a national priority, and that industries should move to rural areas, nearer to their workers, who were presumed to have better living conditions there.

10

The 1933 establishment of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the 1934 National Housing Act, and the GI Bill of 1944 created loan programs that guaranteed low-cost mortgages for new homes, especially to veterans but also to non-veterans.

The 1935 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Building Codes, a set of standards which prioritized new home construction by making it more profitable for builders to partake in the construction of new homes than renovating existing ones.

The 1938 FHA Underwriting Manual, which mitigated many of the risks builders undertook when building in new subdivisions by assuring that certain bank lenders would guarantee the mortgages for homes in those subdivisions.10

This series of actions created a vast new market for new housing construction in the suburbs. With the expansion of the suburbs and the rising ubiquity of the automobile, a modern solution to the nations transportation needs was sought, which resulted in planning for and construction of the national Interstate Highway System beginning in 1956. The underlying policy framework that allowed (and, in fact, required) such large tracts of single-family homes to be built, connected to distant stores and workplaces only by roadways was conventional zoning. By requiring uses to be separated from each other, this spread-out development pattern was often the only legal type of development 11 (see Figure 2.) While the horizontal expansion of sprawl due to conventional zoning ensured that the landscape around major cities was to become low-density and auto-oriented, inner cities simultaneously began to decline. Most major American cities were quite dense and relatively vibrant places in the early twentieth century. Beginning in the late 1940s, those dense neighborhoods began to be slowly abandoned in the process of white flight, in which most of the white, typically higher-income, city residents moved to the suburbs.

11

With the exodus of income, inner cities became more impoverished and less able to compete with their expanding suburbs. In time, they looked to the suburbs themselves for solutions to the ills that ailed them. While most Figure 2. Sprawl is characterized by high land consumption, low density, and large areas of single uses divided by buffers from large areas of a different use. Usually, the only effective way to travel within it is by personal automobile. Source: ForceChange.org cities had adopted conventional zoning ordinances before World War II, during this post-war era, they fully embraced the development those

ordinances enforced and essentially handed their fates over to the automobile. Street parking lanes were removed in order to create high-speed travel lanes along the curb, new subdivisions within the city were built without sidewalks, new retail developments were built with large parking lots in front and only one story tall on the same single-use development formula as such malls were in the suburbs, disregarding the time-tested tradition of including apartments above shops. Any new development was a complete reversal of the older urban forms on which American cities had been built. This showed a resounding lack of confidence in a formula that had worked and often worked vibrantly until World War II. In order to understand why the urban forms that conventional zoning typically creates are so different from the typically development constructed in American through the 1920s, it is important to understand the underlying (if often unstated) assumptions on which it is based. First, as the Standard Zoning Enabling Act defined the purpose of conventional zoning thus:

12

[T]o lessen congestion in the streets; to security safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, park, and other public requirements. 12 The majority of these provisions specifically seek to reduce density. Thus, it should be no surprise that developments based upon conventional zoning tend to be very low-density. Second, conventional zoning is completely numerically-based. There is nothing in a conventional zoning ordinance that states what the result of its use should be, in a physical sense. Rather, in order to determine the effect of a zoning code, the lot size is inserted along with a multiplier called the FAR (Floor-Area Ratio) and the allowable building area is computed. This, along with parking and setback requirements, are the only guidance a conventional zoning code gives as to the form a proposed development should take. The code makes no requirements as to architectural, urban design, or aesthetic traits of the resultant structures. It is not difficult to see how a code like this could create an unimaginative development. Interestingly, the decision in Euclid v. Ambler includes this statement: Thus the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular useis to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the localityA nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. 13 While this statement was written as a defense for the reasoning behind single-use zoning, in hindsight, single-use zoning was too focused on the abstract considerations of buildings and not so much on the places they inhabited. A very enlightened statement, today it rings as an endorsement of the transect, a centerpiece of the more recent urban planning philosophy of New Urbanism.

13

The Resurgence of Cities and the Rise of New Urbanism The first person to question zoning outside the legal arena was Jane Jacobs. In her bestknown work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961, she states that: The greatest flaw in city zoning is that it permits monotony. Perhaps the next greatest flaw is that it ignores scale of use, where this is an important consideration, or confuses it with kinds of use, and this leads, on the one hand, to visual (and sometimes functional) disintegration of streets, or on the other hand, to indiscriminate attempts to sort out and segregate kinds of uses no matter what their size or empiric effect. Diversity itself is thus unnecessarily suppressed. 14 Jacobs is arguing that conventional zoning is hard where it should be soft and soft where it should be hard. It has been overly rigid in dividing cities into uniform, single-use districts whereas it is overly permissive in that it does not establish design standards for streets and buildings that would promote interaction within the public realm. 15 Beginning in the 1970s, architects and planners began to show an interest in the rediscovery of traditional town planning. The group that became arguably gained the strongest voice over time was those that became known as the New Urbanists. They saw sprawl as a devastating force for communities, one that destroyed the potential for human interaction, and so sought to adapt traditional planning philosophies and forms as a way to recreate the interactions and the types of urban spaces found in Americas most treasured older urban places. They soon found that literally recreating Americas older urban forms would be impossible under conventional zoning (which generally considers high-density development as a nonconforming use.) As a result, many of the communities that New Urbanists designed, at least at first, had to be built in places with no zoning ordinances or done under special conditions. In the long term, they knew that for New Urbanism to gain widespread traction, zoning ordinances across the country needed to be changed.

14

As the value of the revival of traditional urban design philosophies gained a foothold in urban planning circles, the New Urbanists call for zoning reform began to be heard as well. From this call for reform, beginning around the year 2000, the modern Form-Based Codes movement blossomed. Form-based codes are zoning codes that are modified in a thoughtful and concerted attempt to fix the problems that Jane Jacobs (as noted above) and others identified with conventional zoning. They are generally much less rigid about the uses of buildings or their lots but are generally quite specific about the physical forms that buildings take and how they relate to their surrounding environments. They are also prescriptive, stating specifically what the code is asking for (often including photos as examples) as opposed to proscriptive, in which the code states what is specifically not desired and allows any other outcome. Where New Urbanism concerns itself with specific developments initiated by individual developers, and generally has little influence outside of those development areas, form-based codes seek to codify the stated aims of New Urbanism walkable streets, promotion of density, and enhancement of the public realm into zoning codes that can be extensible to much larger scales, in order to serve as the development rules for areas as small as one neighborhood or development or as large as whole towns, cities, or regions. New Urbanist developments generally only tangentially affect historic fabric that surrounds them, by altering context. Form-based codes, on the other hand, have the potential to directly affect the form new development takes within historic sections of cities. Thus, the language and implications of form-based codes need to be watched carefully by preservationists in order to ensure that changes to historic areas allowed by the code are in accordance with the specific vision the community has in mind for the future of its historic resources.

15

Along with potential dangers, the rise of form-based codes also provides opportunities for local historic preservation communities. If preservation communities make the necessary effort to be included in the codes development effort and process, the intent of form-based codes is to take into account the viewpoints, goals, and needs of every major community interest that has a stake in the communitys urban design philosophy, based on demands typically substantiated by studies and field surveys, and then build those needs into the regulatory framework or process. Thus, for example, by demonstrating a tendency for incompatible development to happen in certain older areas that are not designated historic districts, preservationists could ask that the new zoning code include regulations that require a level of design review to occur that typically only occurs in historic districts be applied to these older non-designated neighborhoods as part of zoning and enforced as part of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it could provide for some level of conservation protection even for areas that do not qualify under a citys requirements for creation of a historic district or which have not been surveyed yet for historic resources. In addition, the creation of form-based codes typically requires a physical survey by the code development team in order to understand the urban environment their code is attempting to change or mimic. Preservationists could potentially piggy-back a historic resources survey onto this survey process and therefore better understand the physical environment in which they are working without needing to exert the full amount of overhead that would typically be needed in order to launch such a survey. Organization of the Paper This thesis is broken down into five main chapters. First, in Chapter 1, the history of conventional zoning in the United States is briefly outlined in order to explain the innovations that form-based codes introduce to planning practice. The problems with the existing zoning

16

framework are then examined and its detrimental effect on the maintenance of and development within the existing built environment is explained to show why using form-based codes are so important in light of the threats that preservationists face every day to the built environment. Then, in Chapter 2, the New Urbanism movement is introduced as a reaction to conventional development. Its primary components are identified, and the movements general attitudes toward historic preservation are noted. In Chapter 3, using New Urbanist principles as a basis, Form-based codes are introduced. Their typical components are explained as is their typical process of implementation. The common criticisms made toward them are discussed, and finally their implications for and against the historic preservation movement are examined in depth. Chapter 4 presents a series of three case studies, each examining an older American city that has enacted or is in the process of enacting a form-based code that holds authority over significant amounts of historic fabric. The impetuses for the codes development are discussed, the code development processes are described, and the involvement in and reaction of the local preservation community to the new codes is outlined. Finally, in Chapter 5, the points discussed in the earlier chapters and the data gained in Chapter 4 are compiled to develop a series of recommendations to be used by local preservation communities in cities that develop form-based codes, to serve as a guide for preservationists to ensure that all relevant concerns to historic preservation are being addressed by the new code. Review of Literature In the development of this thesis, three general caches of literature were used. Each of three movements this thesis examines has its own library of literature. The largest is that of New Urbanism, which has been rapidly expanding since the official founding of the Congress for the

17

New Urbanism in 1993, and to a lesser extent before that. The literature of the movement tends to be dominated by a set of books and websites published by the firm most known for the founding of the movement, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, and a close circle of practitioners associated with the movement since its creation, such as Peter Katz. These works seem to strive to market the movement in a unified way. The most influential work published by this established group is Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck (2000). The only work that the movement has published that offers some criticism of its successes and failures is The Seaside Debates, which captures a meeting by the practitioners held in 1998 in which they reviewed each others work. Third-party critical literature on the movement is difficult to find in book form, but has often appeared in urban planning journals. Perhaps the best critical source on the movement is Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice by Jill Grant (2006). The form-based codes community is so young that fairly little has been written about it. Despite the American Planning Association encouraging the use of form-based codes to some extent beginning at its 2004 Conference 16, the few articles that have been published in architecture and planning magazines tend to be announcements only of its adoption in a certain municipality, though the library of resources is growing quickly. While the first form-based code was developed for what is generally considered the first New Urbanist development, Seaside, little consistent development on the idea occurred until the late 1990s. Since the form-based coding movement became known as such and broke out on its own in the early 2000s, a series of smaller manuals 17 and one comprehensive book has been published, which describes in detail the process of creating a code: Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers,

18

Municipalities, and Developers by Daniel G. Parolek, Karen Parolek, and Paul C. Crawford (2008). No substantial critical literature on form-based coding yet exists. Criticism of codes is generally done on a local level and is occasionally reported in local newspapers. While the historic preservation movement has a large body of literature amassed over the first forty years of its existence, very little writing exists relating it to New Urbanism and to the problems of sprawl and even less to form-based coding. The best published work that touches on the relationship between zoning, sprawl, preservation, and New Urbanism is Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl by Richard Moe and Carter Wilkie (1997). A Masters thesis by Meredith Marsh of the University of Pennsylvania entitled Striking the Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street compiles a wide-ranging survey of the issues that confront preservation where it intersects with New Urbanism. On form-based codes generally, a Masters thesis in Urban and Regional Planning by Jason T. Burdette of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute entitled Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning? offers a well-reasoned overview. Nothing has been written up to this point on the relationship between historic preservation and form-based codes. A white paper is under development by Jim Lindberg of the Mountains/Plains office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation tentatively entitled Form Based Codes & Historic Preservation: An Opportunity for Collaboration, a draft of which was used as a reference for this thesis. Because so little literature exists on the topic of this thesis at this time, much research was done through the conducting of first-person interviews. Interviews were conducted with several practitioners directly involved in the development of codes, as well as with members of the preservation community, the city planning departments, and code-writing consultants in each of the cities of which a case study was done.

19

Chapter 2. Seeds for Change: New Urbanism

What is New Urbanism? After decades of unchecked sprawl, a small group of designers founded what would become the most influential anti-sprawl movement of the last three decades, called New Urbanism. It is a coalition of professionals, primarily architects, planners, and attorneys that specialize in the design of new towns and the redesign of urban spaces based on a set of urban design principles that takes many cues from the type of development that was typically built in America pre-World War II, but modifies those principles in order to take into account the realities of modern life such as the ubiquity of the automobile. The most recent edition of the movements Best Practices Guide puts it succinctly when it says New Urbanism seeks to reclaim the living tradition of urbanism and bring it up to date. 18 The Founding of New Urbanism The movement that calls itself The New Urbanism 19 is actually the fusing together of two slightly older movements: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The former movement was founded by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), based in Miami, Florida. PlaterZyberk was on the faculty of the architecture school at the University of Miami at the time and Duany had been on it previously20, and so their ideas were disseminated through the student body there, producing a generation of prominent New Urbanist architects. 21 Their focus was on 20

the small-scale aspects of community design: the design of homes, business, and community buildings and spaces and their relationship to the street network. Transit-Oriented Development, on the other hand, was a movement based on the west coast, spearheaded by architects Douglas Kelbaugh and Peter Calthrope. Their focus was on the larger scale, the relationship of a community to the region, and choice in transportation mode. In the early 1990s, Canadian billionaire Galen Weston provided the funds for a meeting of the leaders of the two movements, and from this meeting was established the Congress for New Urbanism, officially chartered in 1993. 22 The intent was to create an organization that would bind the identities of group of practitioners with similar attitudes toward urban development together without limiting their creativity or fully solving their ideological differences as working in the same office would require. The new organization would promote market-driven, community-responsive physical design at the scale of the region, the neighborhood, and the single building that could drive the policy agenda of public action in the entire country. 23 Terming the organization as a Congress intentionally mimics the CIAM (In English, the International Congresses of Modern Architecture, founded 1928), known for its association with Le Corbusier and the promotion of a modernist design agenda quite opposite of what the CNU works toward. The reference is intended to channel the influence, not the ideas of the former movement, though New Urbanism does carry some modernist ideas as part of its dogma, such as the belief in the value of professional experts in urban planning and their power to use design to solve some of the larger problems of society. 24 In order to fully develop the professional lexicon from which the New Urbanist was to work, a series of four Congresses were held over three years in order to discuss and establish each of the movements core principles, with each years Congress focusing on a different scale of urban development. The results were

21

finally compiled, and then laid down in a Charter, which was officially adopted in 1996. (A copy has been included in Appendix A) New Urbanist Projects The most widely-known early New Urbanist community is Seaside, in the panhandle of Florida, completed in 1982. Developer Robert Davis was looking for a unique solution, and Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk marketed to him the idea of a walkable community, with a higher density than a conventional suburban development and the use of design elements common in older American cities, such as front porches, rear alleys, and apartments over the garage. The forms of the buildings were intended to be picturesque, above all, and their designs are based directly on the study of buildings in older southern cities. The intent was to resurrect the physical form of an old southern seaside community and, with it, resurrect a feeling of the traditional values that stereotypically might have existed there 25 (See Figure 3.) In reality, however, Seaside was always intended as a resort community occupied for only part of the year and, since its construction, property there has become so pricy as to make it socioeconomically and ethnically homogeneous thus, it bears little resemblance to the older urban cities from which it takes inspiration. It is this resultant homogeneity that has often been used as firepower against the spread of New Urbanism, and it has at times been called a tool for gentrification. Especially where used in existing contexts, critics have at times blamed New Urbanism for rising land values, the displacement of diverse or minority ethnic populations, and the reduction in the availability of public housing. 26

22

Figure 3. Seaside, Florida is the best known early New Urbanist development, meant to recreate the nostalgia of older Southern communities through architecture and urban design. Source: CoastalFamilyLiving.com Through the 1990s, New Urbanism slowly gained steam, with the completion of prototype projects such as Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Maryland and the town of Celebration, Florida, commissioned by Disney. By the late 1990s New Urbanism gained firm traction and this new development type began to spread to the far corners of America. As of January 2004, the last time a survey of projects was completed, there were 369 neighborhood-scale projects completed or under construction in the United States with 279 more in planning. 27 On one hand, New Urbanism has become a tool by which to redefine the form of communities built on the urban fringe. New Urbanist subdivisions such as Civano, near Tucson (see Figure 4), and Cornell, in Markham, Ontario, are said to be different from conventional subdivisions or gated communities in that they incorporate higher-density housing types, take the vernacular architecture and climate of the region into account, incorporate central public spaces 23

and buildings into the complex, and attempt to establish a street grid that can be integrated into neighborhood communities in the future, promoting connectivity. 28 On the other hand, a branch of the movement is working toward the refilling of decimated areas in existing cities using New Urbanist principles. For example, in 1989 Figure 4. Civano, a New Urbanist community near Tucson takes climate and native landforms into account as part of its urban design, and uses double houses as a way to increase the density above that seen in a typical suburban subdivision. Source: Terrain.org renewal in the 1960s. Low-rise in scale and suburban in amenities, the street network and density are intended to make it look like a Pittsburgh neighborhood near downtown 29 (see Figure 5.) Crawford Square was built partially using low-income housing tax credits, and so most of its units were rent-subsidized upon opening. New Urbanist principles are also commonly used in new developments built under the HOPE VI program for the replacement of derelict and failed public housing, much but not all of it in high-rise developments. In 1995, Henry Cisneros, then secretary of the Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officially partnered with the Congress for the New Urbanism, stating in a press release that All of us at [HUD] are committedto the goal of livable, mixeduse neighborhoods built to a human scale. This is consistent with the principles of the New Urban Design Associates completed Crawford Square, located directly adjacent to downtown Pittsburgh, filling in what had previously been open land that had been cleared for urban

24

Urbanism and, yes, we strongly support this approach because weve seen that it works. Building on this commitment, the Congress for the New Urbanism appointed an Inner-City Task Force and

Figure 5. Crawford Square, Pittsburgh. While deeply suburban in its aesthetic and amenities, this early New Urbanist development deserves credit for being one of the first to tackle the challenges of an inner-city development environment.

developed a set of Principles for Inner City Neighborhood Design that were intended to help guide the

Source: Deitrick and Ellis application of New Urbanism in the revitalization of distressed urban areas. 30 A community where a HOPE VI grant was used in order to foster the redevelopment of a former high-rise public housing site into a new mixed-use community is the former site of Flag House Courts in Baltimore, which was imploded in 2001. The new neighborhood, dubbed Albemarle Square and completed in 2005, includes 336 housing units, 192 of them affordable built on 14.5 acres. The community is developed around a stretch of Lombard Street that was vibrant until mid-century and still houses three Jewish delis, a remnant of its history as a Jewish community. In order to revitalize this commercial street, the new housing was developed around it, intended to recreate a population to frequent the retail along that strip. The surrounding historic fabric is mainly of the red brick rowhouse type, so most new buildings also derive from that, but many varieties are introduced to keep the streetscape interesting. Materials used in the faades of the new buildings are limestone and brick, identical to the older architecture. Most of the neighborhood is new construction, but several historic structures were worked into the master 25

plan and some existing buildings were adaptively-reused as part of the community. The former street grid was re-introduced through the site, linking historic communities on each side, but some public spaces were strategically introduced within the project, as well, including one space, elliptical in plan, that was meant to hold a piece of public art 31 (See Figure 6.)

Figure 6. Albemarle Square, a New Urbanist neighborhood in Baltimore. The new buildings on the right were designed to merge as seamlessly as possible with the historic buildings remaining in the neighborhood, at left. Source: Marsh In the Manchester neighborhood of Pittsburgh, the New Urbanist label has also been used to describe scattered-site infill of HOPE VI housing units in an existing and mostly intact urban neighborhood. When New Urbanism is used for the development of infill at the scale of the single building, there is little to define a structure as New Urbanist, except for its relationship with the street and the use of elements on the faade to provide interest to passersby. In this case,

26

the new buildings were designed to harmonize with the older buildings by being built up to the street, three-stories tall, and constructed of red brick. Parking is placed at the rear of the lots. 32 In some dense, older cities such as Chicago and New York, building up to the lot line and engaging the street is an assumed feature of most new buildings. In most American cities and nearly all its suburbs, however, this is a building typology that has been lost in new construction, so New Urbanist design serves to reinforce the urban design traditions of Americas existing and treasured older urban fabric. However, as will be noted in the next chapter, physically recreating the forms of older urban fabric is often illegal under modern zoning codes. Theoretical Basis of New Urbanism While there are many aspects and scales to the philosophies for urban design that New Urbanism espouses, the principle focus areas in New Urbanist design are: Enclosure of the public realm. This refers to the creation of interesting, flat street walls that are tall enough to create a sense of enclosure for pedestrians within it. The premise is that part of the problem with being a pedestrian in a suburban environment is that the wide-open spaces and lack of finely-grained context provide for a very boring walk. The importance of this idea actually stems from urbanist Jane Jacobs in her masterpiece work The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs is an author to which New Urbanism and lovers of good urban design in general owe a great debt. The Neighborhood. New Urbanism defines this as the area within a five-minute walk, or a quarter-mile from a location. Neighborhoods are thought of as nuclei for towns and cities, but they also must have a sense of self-sufficiency and an inner connectivity through their road and sidewalk network. Unusual points in the road network are to be used to frame civic or commercial buildings designed to integrate with the neighborhood.

27

The Transect. This theoretical concept was originally developed in the ecological community to describe different natural habitats but was adopted by the New Urbanism movement as a way to classify humanitys built environment. Purportedly modified for urban design use through years of observing real urban environments in established cities, it is visualized as a continuum of urbanism, ranging from the completely natural (Transect Zone 1, or T1) to Suburban areas (T3) to the most urban of areas, the Urban Core, referring to the densest districts in a city (T6). Areas that do not fit specifically within that continuum of urbanism, such as heavy-industrial areas and university campuses are given their own zone on the transect, called the Special District (SD). Any type of object that might be included in the built environment can be assigned a relevant zone on the transect ie. a wooden fence would stereotypically be thought of as more rural or suburban, so it would be in one of the lower-numbered zones. Duany PlaterZyberk describes the concept thus: The Transect arranges in useful order the elements of urbanism by classifying them from rural to urban. Every urban element finds a place within its continuum. (see Figure 7)

The Block. This is another concept derived from the writings of Jane Jacobs. It states that the length and perimeter of blocks should be limited, to allow for the pedestrian to get from one point to another in the neighborhood more efficiently, without going out of their way.

Frontages. This term is a piece of jargon commonly used in New Urbanism that refers to how a building addresses the street in front of it. This is encouraged to be an entry element derived from traditional urban neighborhoods, such as a front porch or a raised stoop. Frontage also refers to components of the buildings faade that faces onto the

28

street: for example, how much glass is provided to allow for transparency between the sidewalk and the interior of the retail space.

Figure 7. The Transect is an ecological concept that New Urbanists use to describe a continuum of urban design, referred to as T-zones, ranging from very dense and built up (T6) to rural (T1.) Each T-zone represents an appropriate building height, sidewalk width, road width, etc. Source: ThinkorThwim.com Street Design. New Urbanist philosophy argues that street widths commonly seen in older cities, typically with nine foot driving lanes instead of the twelve that is common today 33, will calm traffic and are more appropriate to human-scaled environments. It also encourages parallel or diagonal parking on the street, which can serve as a barrier between traffic and pedestrians. This also encompasses aspects of landscape design, such as street trees, planters, and pavement types. 34 Marketing Claims of New Urbanism In order to understand the appeal of New Urbanism, it is important to understand how it markets itself in its most established form, completely new developments in the suburbs. Many of these same tactics are used when a New Urbanist development is established in older urban

29

environment and, in fact, many of the claims, especially the advantages of walkability, are much better substantiated in established urban environments. New Urbanism markets itself quite differently from the conventional suburban development patterns that it seeks to replace. It makes specific claims about the potential of living in a New Urbanist community to affect the residents daily lives, some of them substantiated by fact, some less so. New Urbanist developments are usually marketed as providing a better quality of life. This implies that more is being sold to the buyer than the house itself. It includes access to a series of civic buildings and parks that will be part of the development, but more than that, it implies buying into a sense of community, in which one knows ones neighbors and is involved in events and activities with them. It markets itself as an opposite to the perceived anonymity of a conventional suburban development. 35 Urban planner Emily Talen notes there is no empirical proof that New Urbanism creates community. In fact, studies have shown that community can, in fact, exist in conventional suburbia, which New Urbanist philosophy denies. 36 Nonetheless, it is a powerful marketing tool and it is likely that creating more opportunities for interaction does, in some cases, beget the desired interaction between residents. Jill Grant takes this relationship of linking community to physical design further and argues that New Urbanist communities are examples of the movements adherence to spatial (physical) determinism, in which human success and failure is directly influenced by the physical environment the person inhabits. It is a philosophy that the urban design philosophies of Le Corbusier adhered to, in essence allowing architects and urban designers to believe they can be social engineers and solve societys ills, and Grant argues that

30

New Urbanism is adhering to these philosophies as well. 37 Emily Talen echoes her point and notes that physical determinism has never been morally or practically supportable. 38 New Urbanist developments claim to be more walkable than a conventional suburban development. They provide parks, a community space, and sometimes schools, retail space, and telecommuting work space within easy walking distance (the rule of thumb being one-quarter mile) from each residence. That walkability is created by narrower streets, smaller block size, a consistent grid of streets, smaller lots, and interest added to the facades of buildings along the way. The benefits of walkability are less traffic in the community, eyes on the street providing security for children and adults on the street, and health benefits arising from more walking. Generally, it is true that it is possible and pleasant to walk within the development to the amenities that the development provides, but these are limited to community spaces and perhaps a small grocery store. However, because they are often located in suburban locations, the availability and quality of public transportation services nearby varies. If a New Urbanist community is not built along high-quality public transit infrastructure, then residents of the development are still completely dependent on their automobiles to get to work and to obtain any goods not available within the development. 39 Even when located with access to public transit, there is no unambiguous proof that this decreases automobile use by residents of the development. 40 Walking within the community cuts the number of automobile trips a family must make only slightly, and it does not address the problem of isolation that children and teenagers generally associate with conventional suburbia. Another aspect of New Urbanist marketing is a promotion of ethnic diversity within the development. While conventional suburban developments generally cater to a very small slice of the income range and offer only larger houses for sale, New Urbanist communities offer many

31

housing options, ranging from apartments to rowhouses to single family houses. In theory, this variety of options should attract different types of buyers, from different income ranges. In reality at current, though, New Urbanism has a cachet that makes all options in a new development quite expensive, which severely limits the diversity of new residents there. Generally, New Urbanist developments are filled with affluent white professionals, with little income diversity unless there is an affordable or public housing component to the project. 41 Finally, there is the argument that, even in a suburban environment, New Urbanism provides a high-quality streetscape, thus creating a higher-quality environment that would otherwise have been developed. This is true, and in order to do so, the developer needs to be willing to break some conventions, such as adding alleys and alley-facing garages and developing more than three or four stock designs. The result, though, is still a relatively single-use suburban environment. Relationship between New Urbanism and Historic Preservation The relationship between historic preservation and New Urbanism is uneven. Technically, the two movements are working toward the same goals: realization of the recognition of the value inherent in the fabric of older American communities. Both movements seek to revitalize or keep the older urban neighborhoods and small town fabric of America strong and vibrant, but this is the primary concern of preservationists whereas it is of only secondary concern to New Urbanists. New Urbanists primarily use Americas existing urban fabric as models to be inspired by when creating new places. In Suburban Nation, the book that introduced New Urbanism to the masses, Andrs Duany states: By emulating the past, a number of recent projects have demonstrated that designers can make new places that are as impressive as the towns which inspired them. 42

32

The problem with this is that these new places compete with the older fabric they mimic and potentially take away investment that could go to older neighborhoods. Duany reconciles this problem by stating: Why build a new neighborhood than move into an older one that can benefit from the new arrivals? Because sprawl is happening no matter what, so a way to start moving in a better direction is to make sure that new neighborhoods are built in a better way. 43 It also plays into the American obsession with cheap novelty: rather than buy an old house and have to add air conditioning and a dishwasher, a prospective homeowner can buy what looks like an old house, but it comes with these modern conveniences already built in. Sadly, it is not built of the same quality materials the old house is, however, and so is not as durable, which the new owner learns later. The Charter of the New Urbanism specifically includes support of historic preservation efforts as part of the movements premise. A concern for preservation of historic built fabric is mentioned twice in the Charters first two paragraphs: 44 The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of societys built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge. We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.

The Charter also mentions preservation as the last separate bullet point under the heading The block, the street, and the building: Preservation and renewal of historic buildings, districts, and landscapes affirm the continuity and evolution of urban society.

33

Preservation is mentioned as only one of many concerns that are part of the premise for the establishment of New Urbanism, to be sure, but it is important to note that it is theoretically an aspect of the New Urbanist agenda. However, in a 1999 article in Preservation magazine, statements by Stewart Brand, author of How Buildings Learn: What Happens After Theyre Built, suggest a somewhat different view of the preservation movement: I suggest embarrassment should be the preservation stance toward other current movements. Preservationists should have been at the forefront of New Urbanist ideas, meetings, and practice 10 years ago. I was around some of that close friend of Peter Calthorpe when he devised pedestrian pockets and walkable communities; worked on a new-town charrette with Andres DuanyPreservationists were never mentioned in those meetings except by me: They were considered irrelevant. 45

Andres Duany wrote a response to this article, which also included criticisms of the movement by other prominent urbanists and preservationists. In it, he states: 46 The new traditional houses are traditional only in the superficial sense that they are old looking (from a distance.) In fact, you will find that nothing is handmade; all is light-weight and industrialized Needless to say, it is infinitely more modern than the Luddite-Ruskinian technology of hand-applied plaster, hand-worked metals, oiled wood, and cut stone (as if we were still living in caves), produced by the tiny, fashionable architectural avant-gardewe do acknowledge that it is an authentic manifestation of the complexities and contradictions of modern lifeShouldnt a false vinyl mullion snapped onto a vacuum-paned window be considered the very epitome of the modern condition?

Duanys response is specifically written in response to a reaction to New Urbanism that former New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable makes in the article: I hate being forced to choose between hideous sprawl and pre-approved nostalgia the real awful and the awful unreal. Duany replies to her statement by trying to show how modern New Urbanist buildings really are behind all their traditional facades, thereby supposedly disavowing the belief that New Urbanism is nostalgic (though, in reality a sense of nostalgia is one of New Urbanisms

34

biggest selling points.) In his many words, though, Duany shows other aspects of his attitude toward old architecture clearly as well, one of which is a general disrespect for the value of older technologies and full embrace of contemporary industrialized construction techniques. Aside from showing that he doesnt know his audience very well, since this was written for Preservation magazine, it shows a general disregard for the value of older methods. Duanys attitude is only one among the many widely-varied practitioners that are part of New Urbanism, some of whom have more preservation-sensitive backgrounds 47, but as its defacto spokesman, his statements do carry weight. Thus, if his statements are any sign of the movements prevailing philosophy toward preservation, then the movements should not necessarily be assumed to be in step with each other. This underlies the importance of preservationists being influential in the furthering of New Urbanist philosophies in the future. Perhaps the most potentially influential of those is form-based coding.

35

Chapter 3. Seeds for Wide-Spread Change: The Premise of Form-Based Codes

What are Form Based Codes? The Form Based Codes Institute defines Form-Based Codes this way: Form-Based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. They are regulations, not mere guidelines. They are adopted into city or county law. Form-based codes are an alternative to conventional zoning. 48

Form-based codes are a way for communities to plan for their future, either in terms of more sustainable new development or preserving the positive features of their community as it is, and then almost directly transfer that vision into law, so that the plans are executed as ideally as possible. Like their name suggests, form based codes regulate the physical form that development takes, which is in contrast to conventional zoning, which typically only regulates what the use of a building can be that is developed on a parcel of land. This is not to say that form-based codes completely eschew use, but it is not the primary focus of the code. Generally, a large number of potential uses are allowable on any given parcel under a form-based code. In this sense, formbased codes are less restrictive than conventional zoning. Conventional zoning, however, does little to regulate the physical form of potential development. The massing of buildings is specified through several indirect mechanisms. One of these is a number called floor-area ratio (FAR). Floor-area ratio allows a certain maximum 36

square footage of development per square foot of lot area. The problem is that, in order to build a massive building that is non-contextual with its surroundings, a developer need merely assemble a very large lot, and then a large building will be allowed as of right. Other conventional zoning mechanisms commonly used are height limits and setbacks. These mechanisms typically employed by conventional zoning represent only very blunt, non-specific tools in order to regulate development and calibrate to its context, and so the form-based codes movement seeks to imbue zoning codes with more detailed and specific mechanisms in order to allow zoning to be more specific to its context. Marketed Advantages of Form-Based Codes The form-based codes movement markets them as a tool with several advantages over conventional zoning codes: Unlike conventional zoning codes, which are proscriptive - they specify what cannot be built - form-based codes are prescriptive, stating what the community does want, down to whatever level of detail is desired, and discourage other types of development. Conventional zoning uses floor-area ratio (FAR), height limits, and setbacks to control building massing, but these are not specific enough to give a high enough level of design control. Form-based codes attempt to encode the preferences of a community through an open public process during development, in order to build consensus about its intent and make community members have a stake in the new code, and therefore lessen community resistance to proposed new developments. Form-based codes allow for what the community wants to be clearly laid out, and therefore lengthy design review negotiations are no longer necessary between city

37

planners and developers, to ensure that the developer is providing the building form that the city wants. This allows faster turnaround times, less staff time, less wasted expense by the developer, and more predictability of plan review outcomes for the developer. It also ensures greater predictability in the design of buildings built in the community. Because they are based on a study of the existing place and based on perceptions, opinions, and visions for the future of the place expressed by its citizens during a public process, form-based codes are intended and able to be unique and catered to a communitys existing DNA and so are place-specific. Unlike Design Guidelines, which have been used to govern matters of architecture and form in towns up to this point but are usually not law, form-based codes are adopted as law, so they have teeth. This makes them more enforceable. Even when design guidelines are encoded as laws, they are often not as specific as to the desired end result as formbased codes are, which at least theoretically makes the end result of form-based codes more controlled and predictable. 49 Before the name form-based codes was coined in 2001 by Carol Wyant, one of the founders of the Form-Based Codes Institute (and a reviewer of this thesis) 50, they were known as graphical codes. Unlike conventional zoning codes, which are typically dense documents comprised of almost exclusively text, form-based codes lay down their requirements using a series of graphics and diagrams. The intent is to make them easier to use by members of the community who have no professional training in design, architecture, or law and to visually demonstrate requirements and provisions where applicable in order to avoid ambiguities inherent in text-based codes.

38

History of Form-Based Coding Form-based codes are not a modern concept. Similar ideas were used as early as the 13th century in Siena, Italy, when by 1297 the city government had enacted an ordinance governing the design of the urban palaces facing the citys main square, the Piazza del Campo, and required the windows in those palaces to be identical to those in the City Hall. A similar ordinance was put in place in London after its Great Fire in 1666 that destroyed its medieval core. It required straight, paved streets and buildings with uniform cornice lines, and became the system of building control that regulated urban design in London through the 19th century. During the reign of Louis XIV, Paris had regulations requiring that all new buildings respect the street alignment and that specified details such as the solid-to-void ratio of building facades, the continuity of eave lines from one building to the next, and the depth of courtyards in building plans. 51 Thus, during the eras during which they underwent their major rebuilding campaigns that resulted in the defined urban forms that we know them for today, the great cities of Europe had in place codes not unlike modern-day form-based codes. Americas older cities never had form-based codes, but during the first two centuries of Americas development, its major cities attempted to model themselves on those of Europe, and so in essence the codes of Europe likely unofficially governed American urban design, as well. The necessity of dense, compact development due to the lack of reliable transportation until the late 19th century reinforced this. For a variety of reasons explored in Chapter 1, zoning was quickly adopted in cities in America during the 1920s but beginning with white flight in the 1950s, conventional zoning became a prime instigator of large swaths of automobile-centered low-density tract housing that expanded in ever larger rings around city centers just as the city centers themselves decayed. The

39

first attempts to reform conventional zoning codes occurred during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when New York City and San Francisco brought back requirements that streets and plaza spaces be defined by continuous street walls of building facades. At the time, these cities also adopted a design review process and a series of urban design guidelines for integration into new buildings, the implementation of which were negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the developer and the city. 52 These were not full form-based codes, in the contemporary sense, but included many of the same elements. Outside these large cities, however, single-use zoning codes that had been adopted during the middle decades of the 20th century continued to be in widespread use (and continue to be, even in the second decade of the 21st century). Perhaps the first modern form-based code was developed for the community of Seaside, Florida, the same community that is generally credited as the beginning of New Urbanism. The aspect of its location that allowed Seaside to be developed innovatively was that Walton County, Florida, did not have a planning department at the time, and therefore had no zoning regulations in place. 53 (See Figure 8) The architecture of Seaside was to be inspired by the vernacular architecture of Southern towns: Duany and his wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, initially set out to design all the towns buildings themselves. But once the true scale of the project became evident, they realized that such a high level of design control would not be possible, or even desirable. Instead, they handed off the design responsibility to the lot purchasers, or their architects. That decision led to a new challenge finding a way to impart a distinctive character to specific areas within the development The first Seaside code established a hierarchy of seven (later expanded to eight) classes of buildings for use in the new community. Each class was based on a traditional Southern vernacular building type. The code specified the rudimentary physical characteristics of each class, controlling siting on the lot, building height, location of porches and outbuildings, how parking should be handled, etc.

40

After the firms experience at Seaside, Duany Plater-Zyberk adapted form-based codes to work within the legal framework of a planned unit-development. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg, MD, is one early example of that application. Since 1989, when its plan and code were created in a highly-publicized charrette, Duany Plater-Zyberk has crafted similar documents to regulate the build-out of over 200 new and existing communities. 54

Most form-based codes are adopted by governments and regulated as laws, but the code for Seaside was created for the private developer behind Seaside and some continue to be today. At times, codes are also created by developers and then passed into law by local governments. 55 One of the first uses of a form-based code to govern the infill of a large-scale master plan in an existing context was the Master Plan and Form-Based Code for the center of Kendall, Florida, a southwestern suburb of Miami. Developed by Dover, Kohl & Partners of Miami, this code, which was Figure 8. The Urban Code of Seaside adopted in 1999, was designed to densify, urbanize, was a simple, one page diagrammatic document meant to convey the design intents of the architect in order to create and establish a walkable environment in what had a cohesive community aesthetically. become a stereotypical auto-centric suburban retail Source: Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford and office node. It was centered on one of the regions largest malls, Dadeland, but it was also located at the end of the Metrorail line from downtown Miami, which gave it great potential for transit-oriented development. 56 The code was created as a way to implement the Master Plan that Dover, Kohl & Partners developed and aimed

41

Figure 9. In the mid-1990s, Kendall was an auto-oriented retail node in the suburbs of Miami. The plan for its revitalization involved a complete rethinking of the land to include canals, dense development, and strong integration with the existing but incongruous transit infrastructure. Source: Dover, Kohl & Partners to ensure that: buildings were built along the streets with most parking located behind; buildings were built tall enough to help create a sense of enclosures and spaces with an urban character; buildings were to have a vertical mix of uses; buildings were to have a rich variety of architectural styles and detailing; and that sidewalks were to be wider, incorporated into building designs, and covered for protection from the Florida sun 57 (see Figure 9.) A year later, in 2000, the first version of the SmartCode was released by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. As discussed below, the SmartCode was intended to be a template to make it less of a custom process, and thus more convenient and less labor-intensive, for individual communities to adopt an effective form-based code.

42

Figure 10. The Columbia Pike form-based code was designed to help in the redevelopment and re-densification of a historic road that had become a nondescript retail corridor in Arlington, Virginia. It is often held up as a successful example of a form-based code because redevelopment followed the adoption of the code very quickly. Source: Dover, Kohl & Partners A second well-known form-based code that was used to refurbish and encourage infill on an existing auto-oriented retail strip is the code for Columbia Pike, in Arlington, Virginia, adopted in 2003. A historic road in a heavily-developed county that served as the areas main arterial, Columbia Pike had developed in the same generic way as suburban retail strips everywhere else in the country. 58 In order to develop a new vision for the corridor, a series of public meetings was held and a direction was deduced for the corridors future. It specifically focused on redeveloping three nodes along the corridor with dense, mixed-use structures. 59 The code was adopted as a parallel zoning code to the existing zoning along the corridor. Columbia Pike is often used as an example for the potential successes of form-based codes because redevelopment on the corridor quickly followed the adoption of the form-based code, so much so that officials are worried that new redevelopment along the corridor may be allowing land values 43

there to increase too quickly. 60 A new streetcar is currently planned for the corridor 61 and the process leading to a new form-based code for the areas between the nodes is set to begin in summer of 2011 62 (see Figure 10.) Most relevant to preservationists is the application of form-based codes to existing urban neighborhoods or existing downtowns. Form-based codes are often seen as a practical way to shine a spotlight on a district and so show the citys interest in promoting reinvestment there, whether it be a faded mid-century commercial strip or a shuttered historic downtown. An example would be Broad Avenue in Memphis, where reinvestment began as soon as interest was focused on it, even before a new land use strategy was actually adopted there. 63 The SmartCode: Overview For municipalities that seek to adopt a form-based code, they may elect to use an existing template code and then calibrate it to their needs. The template code currently available for this purpose is the SmartCode. It was developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk and originally released in 2000. As of early 2011, it is in version 9.2 and has been available open source for download and use by municipalities free of charge since 2004. 64 Along with the complete code, a modified subset called the Neighborhood Conservation Code is available. 65 The NCC does not include the chapters on Regional Plans and the development of New Communities and therefore provides only the sections that a community needs to develop infill standards for an existing built-up area. The SmartCode: Sections The SmartCode is envisioned as a fully Comprehensive Code, which would replace not only a communitys zoning code but also its master plan, signage, and landscaping ordinances as well. However, in many cases, these existing ordinances are left active, so those sections can be removed from the code.

44

The SmartCode is divided into seven sections, or articles. Three of these are administrative and the remainder represent the four different scales of development that a code could regulate. The sections that SmartCode provides include generally the same information that a custom code would and more, since it aims to be comprehensive, but it is organized in a different manner. Like most form-based codes, the SmartCode uses the transect as its organizing principle when specifying what types of development to allow in what locations. The administrative articles are 1,6, and 7. Article 1 is mandatory for all SmartCodes and includes provisions related to the implementation, purpose, authority, and process of the SmartCode. Article 7 includes definitions specific to the code, which are typically boilerplate but certain terms may be added and deleted depending on the scope of the code. Article 6 contains certain tables of measurements that can also be altered as necessary consistent with other sections of the code. Section 2 is reserved for implementation of a regional-scale plan, referred to as a sectorscale plan. If the form-based code is intended to regulate the entire municipality or an area larger than that, this section of the code is provided and includes large-scale provisions. Section 3 includes provisions to regulate new development on greenfield sites. This article is generally included, except when the community wants to only regulate infill into existing built-up areas with the form-based code. Section 4 includes provisions to regulate infill development in built-up areas. This is included in the code if the community seeks to regulate this type of development with the code. Finally, Section 5 regulates at the level of the block, street, and individual building. It specifies building configuration, location on its lot, and functions, as well as signage and landscaping requirements. This section also specifies street design requirements and

45

measurements of blocks. In essence, this article is the core of the code and includes the elements that are most commonly associated with inclusion in a form-based code. 66 Form-Based Coding and Master Plans Many communities elect not to use the SmartCode as they or their code consultants prefer to have the flexibility of working from scratch, which allows a code to be better tailored to the unique character and needs of different communities. In order to develop a code, the community should preferably have a master plan and must have a specific vision for its future, though part of the development process for the code involves investigating that urban design vision and determining its specific traits on a building and streetlevel basis. A form-based code essentially codifies that vision and lets the community enforce it. It is interesting to note that a form-based code is only a framework and could technically be used to codify any type of development, even the conventional suburban cul-de-sac development that is falling out of favor today. The codes are generally used to codify walkable neighborhoods, 67 but their inherent flexibility is a strength, because it is impossible to know what type of development they will be required to regulate in the future. Development of Form-Based Codes The process of implementing a form-based code is deeply dependent on the vision and needs of a community. The intent is to bring out either the existing or envisioned character of a place where it already exists and create or recreate it where it does not. This is done through a long series of public meetings, with the belief that enough public process will get the community members to develop a consensus on the communitys future. When the citizens have a stake in the development of the zoning code and understand its intent, they have more faith in the outcome of development that it regulates.

46

The code development process begins by documenting the existing conditions in a community. This begins on a macro-scale by making a site visit and looking at topographical maps and street maps, in order to understand the layout, transportation corridors, and the centers of neighborhoods. A more detailed documentation visit is then made in which existing building types, their scales, setbacks, materials, orientation, relationship to each other, etc., is studied. Once the existing urban fabric is understood, then a code can be designed to replicate or improve it. The code team then makes a thorough reading of the previous planning documents developed for the community, which would include master plans, preservation plans, traffic studies, and others. Education sessions are also held to explain to the community what formbased codes are and how they work. The culmination of all this research is the formal beginning of the public outreach process. Generally, but not always, this comes in the form of an urban design charrette. A charrette is a four-day to week-long session in which a group of professionals with different specialties is brought in. The specialties would include design professionals such as architects, engineers, and urban planners but might also include specialists such as transportation and economic development consultants. The idea is to have instant feedback from a knowledgeable professional as to whether a proposed idea would work or not, and if not, why not. The professionals meet with the primary stakeholders in the community for some of the time and the rest of their time is spent working on the design in an open environment in which members of the community can wander in when they are available and offer suggestions to the design team. The result is at least two presentations of ideas during the course of the charrette, so that community members can see the immediate result of their ideas and get excited about what the

47

future of their community. Generally, a staff member talented in making watercolor renderings or computer renderings is among the charrette crew so that ideas can be easily visualized even by community members not well-versed in the communication tools of the architectural profession. Using these visual media, a vision for the potential result of a code is sometimes presented to the community using graphics representing the before state and several steps in the potential positive evolution of the corridor due to the code. A company that specializes in the creation of this type of computer renderings is UrbanAdvantage. 68 After the charrette is complete, the team works to refine the code based on the input they got from the community and its stakeholders, and begins to solidify the code into a wellorganized set of standards that can become regulation. Types of Form-Based Codes Form-based codes can be developed around different organizing principles. By far the most common is the Transect. In order to specify what types of development a community wants to have, it first divides its current self, or its vision of a different future self, into areas based on proposed levels of development intensity. Note that these may or may not be referred to as zones T1 through T6 that New Urbanism defines as the zones of the transect. They may alternatively be organized by names such as downtown or by some other naming convention that makes sense in the context of the community. Once the intensity zones are identified, then differing building forms, parking requirements, requirements for public space, even road widths, are defined differently for these varying levels. Typical Sections of a Custom Form-Based Code A custom form-based code is typically made up of several sections. Some are administrative, which include information on how the code is adopted, what sections of the

48

community it regulates, and what the procedures for approval of a project are, as well as background information on the code and a glossary of terms specific to form-based zoning. The actual standards in the code are typically broken up into the following sections, though each code is different: a Regulating Plan, Public Space Standards, Form Standards, Frontage Type Standards, Block Standards, Building Type Standards, and Architectural Standards. Again, depending on what aspects of its built environment the community is seeking to regulate and depending on how prescriptive it wants to be, sections may be omitted or added to these. The Regulating Plan is a replacement for the zoning map of a conventional code. The regulating plan maps what transect zone and zoning designation each lot in the community fits into. For completeness, it often also specifies location requirements for parking or its absence on each block. Taking a cue from older cities, zones generally transition at alleys between blocks in order to ensure that streets are zoned for the same type of development on both sides. 69 Usually, each lot in the municipality is assigned a zone type, as is typically done in conventional zoning, and that zone type is marked on the lot on the Regulating Plan. These codes are referred to as lot-based. However, some codes (those created by code consultancy firm Ferrell Madden Associates) are frontage-based, which means that the form standards that apply to those buildings are based on what street they face onto, and so the streets are marked with zoning designations on the Regulating Plan rather than the lots. An example of a code like this would be the Heart of Peoria Land Development Code, developed for Peoria, Illinois. (For comparison, see Appendix C) Public Space Standards regulate the communally-owned spaces in the city. The largest public space in any city are the streets and sidewalks, so these codes regulate the allowable widths and materials of sidewalks, traffic lanes, parallel parking lanes, plantings, etc., in street

49

designs. The intent is to make thoroughfares comfortable for pedestrians and make usability for automobiles a secondary concern. Adding parallel or diagonal parking, decreasing the width of traveling lanes, and decreasing curb radii do wonders to slow traffic and make a community hospitable for pedestrians. Form-based codes also generally allow public alleys and encourage their use to access residential garages. 70 This section of the regulations has limited applicability for historic preservation specifically, but having narrow and walkable streets is a necessary component of retaining the historic character of older sections of most cities. The inclusion of standards regulating streets is also a way in which form-based codes differ from conventional zoning codes. Typically, streets are under the control of one city department while private development is under the regulation of another, and efforts to improve one of them is rarely coordinated with the other. Recognizing that buildings and the public spaces onto which they all face are inextricably linked, form-based codes often including regulation of both these aspects of the urban environment. The core of any form-based code is the Building Form Standards. These specify the placement of buildings, their heights and massing, parking requirements, placement in relation to the street, allowable uses, allowable streetscape frontage types, and allowable building types in a zone. Per the philosophy behind form-based codes, these requirements vary widely by community and intended development intensity (transect zone), but in the more urban zones, codes typically require buildings to be built up to the sidewalk, have retail at street level if possible and appropriate, and be of a height consistent or contextual with adjacent or nearby buildings. Codes also typically disallow surface parking lots to be placed right up against the sidewalk, dividing buildings from sidewalks, as street frontage is valued for use by pedestrians as is the ability for pedestrians to be able to enter buildings without needing to pass through an

50

auto-oriented space. Parking requirements are significantly reduced compared to conventional zoning in the more urban transect zones and buildings are allowed and encouraged to take advantage of street parking where applicable. When parking lots are required, they must be placed behind buildings in the middle of blocks and, in some cases, may be shared between several adjacent buildings operated by different owners. The code also allows certain elements, such as awnings, canopies, front stoops and porches, etc., to encroach into the setback area and, in some cases, into the public right-of-way. 71 For sample excerpts of several form-based codes, see Appendix D. Frontage Type standards are a set of regulations that specify the form building facades take as they front onto public streets. This applies in terms of two-dimensional regulation, such as the solid-to-transparent ratio of materials in the faade, but it also allows or disallows and regulates three-dimensional elements on the front of the building such as porches, stoops, galleries, front stairs, etc. 72 If they are developed for construction of a greenfield community, form-based codes can include Block Standards. These specify the length and perimeter of blocks. This is in order to make for efficient traffic flow and many walking routes through the neighborhood 73, taken from Jane Jacobss belief in the value of short blocks in walkable communities. This type of regulation has little relation to historic preservation. Depending on the specificity of regulation desired, the code can also include Building Type Standards. Many communities have trademark building types, perhaps having gained prominence in the past due to the size of lots or previous regulations, such as courtyard apartment buildings, split-level houses, etc. The code can include lists of these typical types of buildings and allow and disallow their construction in different transect zones. In order to allow a

51

building type, it has to be thoroughly described, including example pictures, and then regulations given including how many entrances, how far apart, which interior rooms are placed along the street, etc. 74 This very prescriptive level of regulation begins to relate directly, both positively and negatively, to the creation of new contextual development in historic areas, as is described in detail in the next chapter. The most prescriptive set of standards that can be included in a form-based code are Architectural Standards. These are similar to the architectural design covenants that many suburban developments have in place. The potential specificity of Architectural Standards varies widely. A less restrictive set might include rules of faade composition and materials to be used, but more restrictive elements would include the location and type of windows and doors, and color palettes. The architectural style of new buildings can be specified and a set of architectural details can even be provided, in order to ensure that new buildings match the detailing of existing buildings exactly. 75 For example, a form-based code could provide specific details for how a bay window is built, or how eaves look in profile as they extend slightly over the edge of a roof. 76 Detailing to this level does take some freedom away from architects of new buildings in the community. When taken to this level of prescription, form-based codes can be just as restrictive as historic preservation ordinances. Methods of Adoption Depending on political realities present in a community during the code development process, there are three potential methods of adoption: The scenario in which the code will have the strongest and fastest effect is through mandatory adoption, in which the new zoning code completely replaces the old zoning code. In order to implement this, a strong political will is needed. If the code covers large areas of auto-

52

oriented development, perhaps quite recently built, these areas will become nonconforming in the new code, requiring large investments by the owner to bring them into compliance with the new code in the event of expansion or major changes to the building. If a code is mandatory, significant compromises may need to be made in order to make it acceptable for all parties involved. A significant educational effort would also be necessary when the code is adopted, in order that all city staff and major developers are familiar with the new code. The new Denver form-based code is mandatory and completely replaced the citys 1957 zoning code. An easier method of adoption is to make the code Optional, as a parallel code that is in effect alongside the older conventional zoning code. New development does not have to comply with the new form-based standards, so this code runs the risk of going unused despite the significant development effort necessary to create it. In this method of adoption, a new formbased zoning map (Regulating Plan) is created for the city that applies to new development using the new form-based code only. A final method of adoption called a Floating Zone occurs when the form-based code is adopted as optional and is integrated into an existing conventional zoning code. In order to do this, the form-based code is encapsulated within one type of zone within the existing code, called a TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) Zone or something similar. The zone is not actually applied to any locations on the map, but whenever a developer proposes to use the zone type, he or she creates a proposed Regulating Plan to cover the site and then negotiates with the city in order to find a mutually acceptable version. Upon acceptance, the TND zoning drops down and takes the place of previous zoning at the proposed site on the conventional zoning map. This adoption method is similar to using Planned Unit Development zoning commonly used in many cities, and in fact PUD is how many cities have implemented small-scale walkable

53

urban design within the limits of their traditional zoning code, so this is an offshoot of that practice. 77 Where new form-based codes are adopted as optional parallels to an existing code, incentives can be offered to developers in order to ensure the use of the new code. A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) developed by planner Jason Fondren lists some of the potential incentives: 78 Applications are processed administratively rather than through public hearings Applications are processed with priority over others with prior filing dates Review fees may be waived or reduced Density can be increased through transfer of development rights Traffic impact reports are waived A municipality will construct and maintain internal thoroughfares that through-connect to adjacent sites Payment of property taxes shall be maintained at the level prior to approval, until such a time as a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for each building First-time buyers of newly-created dwellings and businesses within the densest transect zones receive property tax relief Truth or Marketing? Like New Urbanism, form-based codes set a high bar for themselves, claiming to, when adopted in enough cities, significantly diminish urban sprawl, bring back the stereotypical sense of community in old-time America, and recreate Americas urban fabric in a way that will make it more sustainable, more healthful, less dependent on the automobile, and even more fun. And, it claims to do it in a way that is less bureaucratic and more streamlined, and in the long run both

54

cheaper and easier for both municipalities and developers. It is highly unlikely that form-based codes will be able to accomplish all of these goals, and there are likely to be unintended side effects to their implementations. But it is also likely that they will encounter some success in achieving some of these goals. So, up to this point, have form-based codes lived up to their hype and delivered on their marketed advantages? It is really too early to tell, in a general sense, because the urban fabric the codes are attempting to create or strengthen takes years to develop and solidify, and the majority of codes in existence have only been adopted in the last five years. One practitioner has been able to draw conclusions from his experience, though. David Walters helped design a pioneer form-based code for the small city of Huntersville, North Carolina, which went into effect in 1996. After ten years of operation, Mr. Walters evaluated its operation. He concluded that, after ten years, some developers were still resistant to some of the ideas in the code and lack knowledge about how it works, and so the city planners must be constantly educating the development community, as well as each needing to develop an intimate knowledge of the code themselves, which must be passed down to new hires in the planning department. In order to ensure consistency, the staff has built an interpretation file, in order to make sure they make the same call on similar issues when they come up in the future. In order to approve proposals, it has been necessary to assemble an interdisciplinary team that includes an architect, landscape architect, urban planners, traffic engineers, and others, to discuss the proposals for hours each week. Mr. Walters has this generally to say about the citys experience using its code: The experience of Huntersville staff, and other planners in the Charlotte area working with form-based codes, does not bear out the oft-quoted claim that formbased codes expedite permitting and provide incentives for developers with a quick and less expensive approval process. In theory, because the code establishes 55

a clear physical vision and standards for new development, projects that meet those standards can be quickly approved. This may happen in some jurisdictions, but in Huntersville, a town well-equipped to deal with these matters with an expert staff sympathetic to the principles of form-based coding, the design basis of the regulations injects a greater degree of subjectivity into the approval process. However carefully worded and illustrated the code might be, this subjectivity needs careful handling, politically and legally. The approval process was streamlined and effective, but not necessarily any faster than conventional zoning practices. However, the town staff was unanimous in stating that the design content of the code had brought about a big improvement in the quality of new development in the town during the 10 years of its operation since its inception in 1996. 79

It should be noted that Huntersville was a very early adopter of a form-based code, so it should be expected that they would have some challenges because their code was unlike all others at the time. Will the code approval process become more efficient and developers become more able and willing to provide projects that fall within the codes as they become more commonplace? It seems likely, but only time will tell. General Criticisms of Form-Based Coding While form-based coding has a loyal following, it also has critics. Perhaps the most vocal are free market advocates that claim that form-based codes represent an even greater level of government regulation over Americans lives, and the solution is to do away with zoning completely and let the market decide the form new development takes. They cite the natural order that was present in the market before Euclid v. Ambler. 80 This is a flawed argument because, as was noted earlier in this chapter, form-based codes have been a part of the development landscape in European cities, albeit not with that name, for hundreds of years. While America did not have such codes, a lack of fast transportation and inspiration from using European cities as a model, created Americas typical Pre-War urban form. With the advent of faster transportation in the form of automobiles and Americas belief in its own preeminence,

56

that order no longer exists, so government regulation has to step in. But, the anti-sprawl efforts of form-based codes are actually just a counter-regulation to the federal subsidies (ie. the GI Bill) and federal regulations (urban renewal and the creation of the Interstate Highway system) that created sprawl in the first place and then reinforced it. Americas development market has never really been free and the typical development pattern present in places without zoning, such as Houston, does not suggest that deregulation would yield high-quality results. Within the planning community, there are criticisms or perceived problems with some aspects of form-based coding and its implementation. Some of these are unavoidable, but they should still be taken into account when considering creating a code: Form-based codes have the potential to be very prescriptive and rigid. 81 While in most cases, form-based codes have been widely supported by the development community as a way to systematize and simplify the approval for new developments, the provisions must be carefully tested to ensure that they are not unduly limiting. If too prescriptive, they could dissuade developers from working in a jurisdiction and have the potential to limit the creativity and problem-solving abilities of architects. 82 Form-based codes tend to cost two to four times as much as a conventional zoning code. 83 This is because the existing urban form of the community must first be catalogued, and then the development process requires a long public input phase. In many localities, the streets are managed by a different governing body than the planning and permit review process in the city. This will require coordination within the city, which could complicate the implementation of a comprehensive form-based code. 84 Form-based codes have not been proven legally. While Euclid v. Ambler guarantees the legality of zoning and Penn Central v. New York guarantees the legitimacy of regulating

57

aesthetics as part of the public good, the legality of the level of prescription form-based codes include has not yet been challenged. In order for cities to establish zoning ordinances in the 1920s, each state had to pass an Enabling Act, most of them based on a template law called the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. This old law does actually allow zoning that is based on form rather than use, so there is nothing illegal about implementing form-based coding 85. However, in order to clarify the issue legally and in order to encourage their use, a handful of states have passed new enabling legislation that specifically enables form-based codes. As of 2006, these were California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 86 Architectural and Aesthetic Pre-Associations While the New Urbanism movement often states that it is first and foremost concerned with the development of good urban form and there is no stylistic bias to its developments 87, almost every New Urbanist development has derived its architecture from Classicism or other revival styles relevant to the region in which they are built. This has been the case ever since the development of Seaside, for which the development team researched the vernacular styles of the southeast as inspiration and as direct models for the developments buildings. Andres Duany justifies this by saying that the vast majority of homeowners are only interested in traditional architecture and that traditional-styled buildings are able to be serviceable background buildings, though they must be carefully composed and details because any inaccurate use of traditional architectural detailing results in a parody of the style. 88 Because its heritage derives from New Urbanism and many of its practitioners are also architects specializing in New Urbanist developments, the form-based coding movement has a strong tendency to encourage new development to be in historicist styles as well. While this isnt

58

a problem in and of itself, limiting the expression in new construction has the potential to limit architectural innovation in a citys new developments. New Urbanist developments tend to be neighborhoods in themselves and so dont influence the architecture that surrounds them. Formbased codes do influence the architecture of large areas, and so limiting innovation over larger areas could have more tangible effects on the urban form. Duany rejects the legitimacy of modernism as a legitimate style for new development, an attitude that has carried over into the field of form-based coding, because he claims that, in modernism, each building tries to be individually unique and therefore the sum of them create visual discord. 89 While this was often true, examples of good and dense urbanism, in which buildings were contextual to each other, were built during the modern area. Examples of it can be witnessed by visiting the vast neighborhoods of vernacular modernist houses and apartment buildings that make up much of the inner ring of Chicagos western suburbs. 90 Modernism cannot be so easily rejected for its bad urbanism, and even if it were, that doesnt necessarily give a reason for its rejection as an architectural style. New Urbanist architect Dan Solomon states the problem well when he says: the attempt to repeal the 20th century is so fundamentally doomed that it marginalizes those who subscribe to it. Although the Modern Movement can be legitimately criticized for its mistakes, its bad urbanism, its granting of autonomy (a destructive autonomy) to individual buildings and individual architects, those defects can be addressed without alienating ourselves from the culture that produces the new 91 In his quote, Solomon seems to reject modernism but accept contemporary architecture derived from modernism, but it is important that form-based codes understand the value of both modernist and contemporary architecture and be willing to code for them as well as revivals of older styles. As is discussed in the next chapter, this is a very important point for historic

59

preservation as it seeks to preserve the best of the countrys recent past architecture, an initiative in which form-based coding could significantly help or hinder the efforts of preservationists.

60

Chapter 4. Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation

What sections and specific regulations in a form-based code affect historic preservation? Just as preservationists focus more on refining certain elements of proposed new infill construction in historic neighborhoods than others because those elements are likely to have a more dramatic effect on the streetscape and context, preservationists should be cognizant of some elements of form-based codes more than others because they are more likely to have a more direct effect on the types of buildings that are proposed as infill as a result of the code and/or the types of buildings that the code implies to be allowed in historic areas. In terms of specifying the forms of new infill buildings, Building Form Standards have the most generalized impact on the massing of the structure. In this category, preservationists should endeavor that codes replicate the existing conditions in each historic area based on the building placement, height, elements and uses in that location. Specific regulations within Building Form Standards often include: 92 Specification of a Build-To Line (BTL.) This is a required line that the building is built up to, not a minimum setback as in traditional zoning. In historic neighborhoods, this should be consistent with the existing fabric, i.e. in many Pre-War neighborhoods it should be zero to five feet, as is typically specified by form-based codes, whereas in postwar neighborhoods, it would typically be farther from the street face.

61

Specification of a Maximum Lot Width. This disallows the combining of many lots into one in order to build a very large building in a context where this would not be consistent with the existing conditions. This regulation generally is consistent with the goals of preservation because it would tend to keep smaller buildings from being torn down to combine their lots to build a larger building.

Specification of Minimum Building Height. While traditional zoning codes typically did specify a maximum building height, and form-based codes generally do as well, they rarely specified a minimum height. This regulation has the intent of requiring new infill buildings to enclose the streetscape consistently. This is generally in line with preservation goals, but if executed on a large scale, could create a uniform height for all buildings and thus limit randomness in the streetscape, a feature even of pre-War communities that can add interest.

Specification of Maximum Building Height in Stories. By specifying maximum building height in number of feet, traditional zoning tended to encourage new buildings to fill their zoning envelope completely. The resultant new construction was uniformly at the maximum height and had a flat roof in order to make full use of the allowed height. The buildings also tended to have low ceiling heights in order to get the maximum number of possible stories, and therefore units, built within the zoning envelope. If the maximum building height is specified in stories, a more specific measure is given by code of what the streetscape is supposed to consist of. Generally, the number of stories is set as less than would typically fit within that height, essentially creating a soft height limit of less than the allowed total height. In order to use the full zoning envelope, the developer can either provide higher ceiling heights, a rare but oft-sought amenity by buyers, and/or

62

experiment with varied roof forms. The result is intended to be a more interesting and varied parapet line. This is generally consistent with the goals of historic preservation. Specification of Ground-Floor Finished-Level Height. Used for rowhouses and the like, this height is generally set at about a half-story above grade, consistent with older urban fabric. This is generally consistent with the goals of historic preservation. Specification of minimum ceiling heights for ground floor and upper floors. This is to ensure that floor-to-floor heights are consistent in newer buildings with the older urban fabric surrounding them. These are less-used in form-based codes and preservation review boards usually do not regulate new construction this strictly either. However, in very sensitive areas with ground-floor storefronts and upper-floor residential or offices, this regulation could potentially be used to ensure a very certain result. In this case, use of this form-based code provision would be to the betterment of preservation. Specification of maximum building length and width. These regulations specifically limit the massing of a building on its lot. One application for their use would be in older residential areas where the tri-part composition of house-rear yard-detached garage is an important aspect of the landscape and therefore should be maintained. These regulations are generally consistent with historic preservation objectives. Architectural Standards, an optional element for a form-based code, can have a strong effect on historic preservation, with potentially mixed results. Architectural Standards vary in strictness and depth by typically specifying physical qualities of designs such as symmetry, rhythm of windows and doors, the locations of doorways, materials, roof types, and even detailing of specific elements such as eaves, window surrounds, and porches. In historic neighborhoods, such aspects are typically the domain of design guidelines and architectural review boards, so some

63

conflict is implied between the two types of specified standards unless they were developed in conjunction with each other. In addition to requiring certain general standards as to massing and building size, typically historic design review boards, in order to work toward a consistent application of their power, work from a kit of parts of designated significant historic features in a community. When proposed new infill buildings include some of elements from the kit, the board approves the design, or approves it after specifying small changes to detailing to make the design more consistent with surrounding fabric. Form-based codes follow a very similar approach and their kit of parts may be more or less specific than those followed by the design review board, depending on the level of authority the code was given. However, arguments have been made that this approach to governing review of infill buildings in historic areas is flawed as it often leads to watered-down historicist knock-offs of buildings already existent in the urban fabric, and so some design review boards have strived to move past this type of review and instead ask for buildings to examine the underlying themes of the district, interpret them, and design infill buildings with contemporary materials and design philosophies, but based upon the technologies and themes inherent in a historic districts urban fabric. 93 An example would be the reuse of a widely-spaced metal grid in the faade of an infill building proposed in the Cast Iron District in the SoHo neighborhood of New York City. This keeps the architecture of a historic district from being stuck in its historic time period, unable to advance as the city around it changes. Historic districts were created as a way to recognize and preserve design excellence from the past, and so it makes sense to encourage it in the future in historic districts, as well. If preservation philosophy moves more in this direction in the future, a level of conflict is imminent with the parts-based design philosophy that form-based codes typically imply.

64

Finally, some aspects of form-based codes typically have little relation to historic preservation. Block Standards only apply to new development and Public Space Standards only relate to preservation peripherally, for example if a street were to be narrowed to its historic width or be turned back into a brick street as it was historically. While public spaces, either in the form of street or park, facing historic buildings contribute greatly to their success, this aspect of the design is typically not under the purview of historic preservation design review entities. What dangers does form-based coding pose to the historic preservation movement? Form-based codes are, in essence, an attempt to use regulation to recreate a type of urban fabric that organically developed in older communities in the United States without explicit design codes. The unique appeal of the urban fabric of older, denser cities is the product of a slow evolution of small changes. Such a diversity of buildings, including their various idiosyncracies and foibles, is something only time can create. It is impossible to create this by regulation, but is it possible to approximate that fabric and then let it evolve over time to become a contributing part of an older historic city center? How does one go about that, and what are some of the potential pitfalls? Front-loaded public process. One marketed advantage of form-based codes is their ability to streamline development by reaching a consensus of community members during the development of the code, and therefore not requiring that individual projects undergo a public process but rather be approved administratively by the planning department, since the code is the product of all stakeholders interests. This may work and makes a lot of sense in cities or areas where the development context is the same for most proposed projects (i.e. a new Walgreens along a highway) and any

65

criticisms to the development would be about parking availability, signage, materials, etc. However, in the case of development projects within historic areas of cities (historic districts or otherwise), form-based codes cannot override the need for the project-by-project public review process that is typically provided by historic preservation commissions. In historic areas, each project is different, each site is different, and each historic context is different. Thus, the appropriate response from the public and from the preservation community will be different for each potential project and depends on the local preservation ethic at the time as well as the buildings history. There is no way that a document can foresee and regulate the complex forces that drive preservation decisions, and so the public process needs to remain open after the code is adopted. Creation of a homogeneous environment. Jill Grant argues, drawing on academic opinions, that New Urbanism has the tendency to contribute to the homogenization of America. While in theory each New Urbanist community is to draw from the regional vernacular architecture of the region where it is built, in reality many New Urbanist communities import vernacular styles that are not native to their regions. 94 It is true that conventional subdivisions have long done this and that importing a style was a common practice even in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but New Urbanism is coming of age in an era where the homogenization of America has reached dizzying proportions, and when the styles it uses not carefully chosen and applied, it has the potential to continue a trend that it claims to be working against. Form-based coding is directly descended from New Urbanism, and carries with it a strong imperative to work in a regions vernacular, as well. And, like some New Urbanist architects, some form-based coding consultants up to this point have shown less than due respect

66

to making sure that housing types they specify are native to the locale where they are specified to be built. 95 While New Urbanist communities have limited influence because they are selfcontained and dont influence their surrounding urban fabric much, a homogenizing tendency in form-based coding could have a much wider effect on the urban fabric of America, and so this potential tendency has to be watched carefully. Freezing a place in time. If a form-based code includes a very strict level of prescription which includes architectural standards, the potential exists for it to limit all new development in the community to the singular approved architectural vocabulary or style. To be sure, this problem already occurs in some suburban areas that have strict architectural standards administered by an architectural review board, and the threat is the same. While some level of uniformity even in architectural styles can add to a citys cohesiveness, too much control threatens to keep any new buildings in the community from expressing the architectural innovations of the era in which they are built. The last unique buildings in the community will have been built soon before the architectural standards were enacted, essentially freezing the architecture of the community in time at the date of the codes establishment. While codes can technically change over time, it should not be taken as a given that they will, as it should be noted that many conventional zoning ordinances have been in place since the 1950s or 1960s without significantly evolving since they were created. 96 If such a level of stagnant control is applied to a city, very little new unique architecture will be created in the community, and so there will be little architecture to preserve from after the codes date of application. It should be remembered that it is not always possible to know what constitutes a landmark when it is constructed, but they are often buildings that stand out from their surroundings in some way. Andres Duany has said good copies are better

67

than bad originals. 97 But, how is it possible to know what constitutes a bad original when it is built? This is the reason for waiting for fifty years before designating a building to the National Register of Historic Places. And, if only copies are built, there will be no originals to preserve. Tendency to create inauthenticity. Form-based coding, if not carefully handled, threatens to freeze a city in a time that never existed. The most extreme examples of this are the New Urbanist communities of Seaside and Celebration, Florida. Both are designed to be copies of stereotypical Southern communities from the early twentieth century. In reality, though, they are resort towns with little diversity and none of the messiness of the real urban life a town would have. 98 They also represent communities that never existed. A look at real photos of towns from the early twentieth century shows them to have been more ragged, less well-kept, and less cohesive than the modern towns built to imitate them. There is a place for villages of nostalgic fantasy, and in this vein it makes sense that Celebration was built by the Walt Disney Company (see Figure 11.) However, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards bind preservationists to not create a false sense of history. In the sense of creating false history, these most extreme of New Urbanist communities are not so different from the villages that historic buildings were moved to in droves in the 1960s when they got in the way of progress. Historic preservation rejected villages like these as inauthentic decades ago, and in the same vein, fake stereotypical villages like Celebration have no place in historic preservation. Luckily, Seaside and Celebration are very extreme examples and form-based codes likely do not have the power to transform a real existing city to that extent. However, preservationists must be aware of the potential for form-based codes to create inauthentic places out of authentic ones. The compatibility of infill that a form-based code helps create as-of-right is only as good as the code itself.

68

Figure 11. Celebration is a New Urbanist community created by the Walt Disney Company as a rendition of a traditional American town. It is perhaps the most extreme example of using New Urbanism in an attempt to play into nostalgia. Source: OrlandoWeekly.com Can be made too prescriptive for preservation. Form-based codes claim to allow communities to recreate their older urban fabric, but often offer only a few building types and a set palette of materials and architectural details by which to do so. While a set palette like this may work for newly-developed places, it has been suggested in multiple interviews undertaken during the writing of this thesis that the proposed palette is too small for use in historic cities. 99 If an inadequately small palette is put in place in a historic city, it has the potential to genericize the urban fabric as new buildings will not include the high level of finely-grained detail historic buildings have. To be sure, this problem already exists and there is something to be said for a new building playing a background part to historic

69

buildings and perhaps this means less minute detail, but this should be a choice agreed upon by the developer, architect, and preservation commission, not an unanticipated result of a restricted architectural palette offered by the code regulating the development. Danger in too much contextual development. There is also such a thing as too much contextual development. While preservationists have long advocated for more and better contextual development that respects its historic surroundings, form-based codes are able to do this (at varying levels of quality, depending on the code) without the intervention of preservationists. As little as preservationists like to admit it, the occasional corner gas station provides an important counter point that sets historic buildings apart from their surroundings. Creating a whole neighborhood or city of contextual development leaves nothing that is out of context, and so gives a viewer no frame of comparison. If too many surrounding buildings show respect to a historic building in their midst, the historic building will no longer stand alone and unique among them, as elements of its materials and form will be copied in each of the surrounding buildings, dumbing down the composition of the whole area. It is not likely that this problem could become manifest at a large scale, but in some very historic cities, form-based codes do pose this risk. Less incentive to keep old buildings because old densities can be built again. This is not a concern in historic districts, where resources are protected, but has potential to damage areas of non-protected older urban fabric. In many areas of American cities, especially places where land value is high, a premium is placed on the ability to have as many condominium or retail units on a lot as possible. In places where older urban fabric exists and the city is subject to a mid-century zoning ordinance that imposes high parking requirements, often

70

developers buy older buildings and keep them in use in order to get full value out of their existing units. In Chicago, as an example, the urban fabric continues to be made up substantially of 1910s and 1920s apartment buildings that take up their entire lots. If one of these buildings is torn down to be replaced by a new apartment building, that building cannot have the same density of units because the citys current conventional zoning ordinance (adopted in 2004) 100 requires each unit to have a least some off-street parking. This is true even if the building is located directly adjacent to mass transit. 101 In addition, conventional zoning ordinances typically limit density well under what was allowed to be developed in the early twentieth century. As a result, though this point cannot be absolutely proven, it is likely that a large portion of Chicagos pre-World War II urban fabric continues to stand as a result of the parking requirements and density-reductions of conventional zoning codes being applied to the city. 102 Ironically, thus, conventional zoning may have acted as a de-facto preservation ordinance for these old, dense three-story apartment blocks that fill their zoning envelopes. While they are not generally protected by preservation ordinance and are usually not architecturally spectacular individually (some are), in many neighborhoods, the citys urbanity is tangibly felt by walking through block after block of these structures. Form-based codes, by nature, re-legitimize old urban forms and old urban densities. While they dont usually rid cities of off-street parking requirements entirely, they do generally reduce them just as they increase allowable densities somewhat. The threat is that, if new zoning ordinances are applied to dense neighborhoods where older fabric has been kept standing artificially by conventional zoning, could re-legalization of high-density urban forms result in the destruction of large areas of older fabric now that they can be replaced with the same number of

71

units, with modern kitchens and baths? How can form-based codes be written to ensure that demolition does not occur for this reason? Jim Lindberg of the National Trust suggested that one solution would be to require developers to recycle ninety percent of waste from the building they tear down. 103 This would be an expensive prospect for a developer. There are other potential solutions as well, but this does need to be considered as a potential side effect of a form-based code that might catch a city by surprise. Inclusion of nonconforming use regulations that have hurt preservation in the past. Like conventional zoning ordinances before them, form-based zoning ordinances have sections regarding nonconforming properties that detail what current buildings have been grandfathered into the code and how much a change to the property needs to be made for it no longer to be grandfathered. In the past, nonconforming use regulations have worked against the historic preservation movement. In some cities, a building would no longer be grandfathered if it became abandoned. Making a major investment in the building could also remove the buildings grandfathered status, thus requiring the building to comply with the conventional zoning ordinance. Since older buildings were often built to their lot lines, the addition of modern parking requirements, landscape buffers, etc. that a conventional zoning ordinance requires was literally impossible without severely modifying or demolishing the building. And as a result, many older buildings were demolished or languished for years or decades without major reinvestment. 104 Interestingly, form-based codes re-legalize many of the buildings that were considered non-conforming under conventional zoning ordinances. If they have lasted this long grandfathered into the old zoning code, they are completely legal again in the new code. This is a windfall for preservationists for efforts to preserve buildings that represent Americas older, pre-

72

War urban fabric. In addition to no longer facing a threat from zoning, confidence in their continued legality may encourage maintenance and investment in these older buildings. However, form-based codes do apply the non-conforming label to a whole new class of buildings: typically any building that is set back on its lot behind a parking lot, the auto-oriented retail that makes up substantial portions of most post-war suburban communities. Form-based codes seek to require these auto-oriented uses to slowly reform themselves to become the pedestrian-oriented streetscapes of older generations. Where this auto-oriented development is blight, this is a good thing, but form-based codes automatically assume that auto-oriented development is bad, and therein lies a fallacy that preservationists will have to battle in the future as they attempt to preserve resources from the Recent Past. Preservationists will find themselves in the position of trying to preserve unique resources that were developed in the post-war era, once again against the currents of zoning. While they will fathomably be able to get one or the other post-war auto-oriented building granted historic designation, the slow effect of zoning will reform its surroundings and remove its context, leaving only an island representing Americas history in the post-war decades. It is a difficult call to make because, on one hand, preservationists are usually adamant urbanists that support the ideas behind form-based codes that seek to recognize Americas past and make Main Streets vibrant again using their underlying character as strength. A form-based code could potentially lay much of the regulatory framework for revitalization of a Main Street while leaving its history completely intact, if coded carefully and sensitive to the type of resources that exist there. On the other hand, zoning is a surprisingly powerful tool code consultant Lee Einsweiler commented on how easy it is to accidentally wipe something off the map 105 - and

73

thus form-based codes have the potential to wipe out a whole era in American architectural history just like conventional zoning had the power to before them. Belief primarily in use of historicist styles, that can dull interpretation of historic buildings. While form-based codes do not specifically discourage the use of modernist or contemporary architecture as new developments implement the provisions of the code, renderings of the after state of the city upon full build-out of the code typically show an urban landscape that is made up of modern replicas of styles from the early 20th century and before. Since historic buildings were typically built of very high-quality materials with high-quality craftsmanship whereas contemporary buildings typically are not, architects and preservationists can easily distinguish between a real historic building and a contemporary copy on sight. However, the general public may not be able to. Preservationists and others have long argued that a great deal of the value of a historic building is in its uniqueness and if a real historic building is suddenly surrounded by substandard copycats, then the popular appreciation of the real historic fabric could be diminished. 106 On one hand, preservationists fight for the idea of compatibility, such that new structures respect and do not unduly stand out from the existing make-up of a cohesive historic place. There is a very fine line between the creation of compatible new structures and the creation of new buildings that copy the existing fabric and thus threaten to diminish its uniqueness. This is a careful balance that preservationists have needed to watch for some time and it becomes an even larger concern with the spread of form-based codes. Need for performance requirements for sustainability. The intent of form-based codes is to regulate urban design in a way that brings back the feel of an older American city. However, beneath all their trim and stucco, structures that are built under new form-based codes are in fact modern buildings built of modern materials with

74

modern mechanical systems. For the most part, modern mechanical systems are an improvement over older systems, as they are more energy-efficient. However, when designing with sustainability in mind (including in the LEED 107 system), one potential way to introduce adequate ventilation into a building while using less energy is through natural ventilation 108, essentially the art of opening ones windows. Natural ventilation is an art that was perfected in exactly the era of urban design that form-based codes are trying to bring back into vogue, as almost no buildings were built with air conditioning before 1930. By requiring windows of a certain size in certain amounts or certain locations on facades, form-based codes codes are essentially requiring the form of the buildings to match that of older buildings that were designed to be naturally ventilated, yet the codes do not take the minor extra step of requiring them to use these fenestrations to breathe in the same way that older buildings did, and thus reducing their energy consumption in a way that is built into their design. Despite their general lack of insulation, commercial buildings built before 1920 were on average more energy-efficient than commercial buildings that were built during the 1990s, and approximately as energy-efficient as those built between 2000 and 2003. 109 By reusing the cleverness of cross-ventilation that older building designs perfected and then insulating those designs to modern standards, significant energy savings could likely be achieved. To some extent, this type of requirement is the purview of a building code, but building codes generally do not regulate window size and location to the extent that a form-based zoning code does, so in order to unify these logically-connected requirements, they could easily be included in a form-based zoning code as well. Conclusion. Despite any potential pitfalls that a proposed form-based code presents for a local preservation community, form-based codes are vast improvements over conventional zoning. In

75

many respects, their goals ally with those of historic preservationists. They respect and take inspiration from Americas past, seek to assist in the revitalization of older city centers, and hope to re-integrate walkability into American lifestyles. In no way should this thesis be taken as a condemnation of form-based coding. What opportunities does form-based coding present for the historic preservation movement? On the contrary, form-based codes offer significant potential opportunities for local preservation communities to grow stronger, be viewed as more legitimate, and become more visible by placing their interests at a more central position in a system of law that is friendly to their cause. A way for preservation communities to make their interests law. Historic preservation is currently protected and legitimized by a series of laws that include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its amendments and by thousands of state and local historic preservation ordinances. However, preservation ordinances only apply when a historic district has been established or an individual local landmark has been designated. Form-based codes offer the opportunity for preservationists to make historic preservation a more central discourse in communities by protecting larger areas by integrating preservation concerns directly into zoning codes. This is done in two ways. First, historic preservation or conservation overlay districts can be included in a formbased code. These are special form standards that must be followed in a certain part of a city. For example, in Denver, the Curtis Park Conservation Overlay District (CO-2) allows detached garages to be constructed on any lot in the neighborhood that is residential and occupied by a historic structure. This allows construction that is consistent with the historic character of the

76

neighborhood, even when in violation of maximum building coverage standards of the underlying Zone district. 110 The influence of preservationists can be exerted on the codes in more subtle ways, however, in such a way that building owners do not even know that they are complying with provisions of the code that are sensitive to preservation as they follow the code. The preservation community can build this influence into the code itself by actively engaging in its development. By pushing for an adequate number of Building Form types for a historic neighborhood that is being rezoned, they can help the neighborhood stay contextual. Preservation communities may even be able to exert influence on neighborhoods that are not designated as historic, but have a cohesive fabric of existing buildings, by requiring contextual form standards to be adopted in those neighborhoods, such as a limitations on building height, requirement of rear alley garages, and other measures. The result of using this hidden influence is that preservationists may be able to protect sections of the city that would be hard to officially designate as historic, and they can offer some protection to larger areas of the city without having to exert the significant manpower that would be necessary to review plans for issuance of certificates of appropriateness, as would be necessary if the areas were officially designated. The interests of the preservation community in these areas could be handled (perhaps unknowingly) by officials as part of standard Plan Review for any new development in the protected area. This has the advantage of not requiring a separate historic preservation review process, which requires coordination between city commissions and agencies, but has the disadvantage of potentially being administered by staff not trained in and not necessarily specifically concerned with historic preservation.

77

Providing contextual form standards as part of a form-based code has the potential to offer some protection to areas of the city where many citizens may not even understand that protection needs to offered. One type of area where this applies is communities that have substantial, significant, and cohesive concentrations of buildings dating from the mid-twentieth century (recent past resources), especially small-scale storefront buildings. Many communities do not understand the value these resources may have, but many preservationists are beginning to, and creating the code in such a way as to require a maintenance of the general scale of these buildings in areas where they are prevalent could provide a way to keep them standing until the community realizes their significance and is willing to officially designate them as historic. Where mid-century development comes up to the lot line and includes large plate-glass windows that face onto the sidewalk, the case be easily made that these resources contribute to a walkable and urban community. Auto-oriented mid-century development, in which buildings are placed within or at the rear of a parking lot, may be hard to protect within the typical framework of a form-based code that prioritizes the pedestrian. Pushes back on property rights argument that preservationists so often face. The level of regulation that form-based codes impose is often as strong or stronger than that that preservation ordinances impose. In the past, especially in more conservative areas of the United States, preservation ordinances have come up against a claim by property owners that they unjustly regulate what the owner can do with their property, the usually uneducated claim that those preservationists will tell me what color to paint my house! Predictability, form-based codes have come up against some of the same arguments in some cities. For example, the city of Bloomington, Illinois is in the process of adopting a formbased code at the time of this writing. Dale Nafziger, owner of a landscaping and gardening store

78

on Main Street in Bloomington has led the opposition to the code. His position after eighteen months of debate on the code was that, despite many changes he agreed with that would make the code more like the existing (conventional) zoning code 111, he still did not agree with it in principle, saying that the new rules (proposed by the [Main Street Association] group) are much better, but its still the freewill thing. I think form-based code tramples the property rights of the people who helped build the city. 112 As of early 2011, the code remains on the table, but has been stripped of many of its most urbanist provisions and stands to be adopted only as an optional parallel code, and only in one of the two twin cities through which the Main Street corridor runs. 113 Form-based codes potentially face some hurdles at first because of opposition based on the property-rights argument. Once the codes become more widespread and common, that opposition will likely become more subdued. As it does, preservationists will be able to more easily fight the argument themselves by showing that the level of regulation they propose is no more extensive than that that form-based codes present. Can help communities regain unique historic character. Before the era of interstate highways and chain superstores, every small town and large city had a reason to exist and a specific economic engine either a product or an attraction which provided a communitys wealth and the citys architectural form reflected that. The age of the city and its ethnic background also influenced the form of a towns public spaces, streets, and predominant architectural styles. In the age of sprawl, homogenization has taken over, the result of a corporate belief that the same inexpensive prototypical design will serve the needs of any populace equally well, not taking into account the varying heritage and character of that

79

populace and of the locale. The result has been a well-documented dumbing down of Americas retail aesthetic. Form-based codes create a way to regain a towns historic character or reinforce what remnants of it still exist. The Regulating Plan of a form-based code can help enforce that new commercial development occur in locations where a community has prioritized development per its Comprehensive Plan. The codes Building Form Standards and Architectural Standards can require that that new development be contextual with older sections of the community in design, and that it use high-quality materials consistent with the old buildings to become contextual, even specifying detailing if that is deemed necessary. For the construction of small commercial buildings, the code provides guidance on how to create a structure that is contextual to the communitys desired character. When regulating new proposed structures by large corporations, the codes can serve as a way to force the corporations hand, in terms of the structures aesthetics. Corporations should respect the communities in which they build their stores and add to their aesthetic and not take away from it. If they did this as a standard practice, these measures would not be necessary, but since they dont, form-based codes are a way to ensure new structures they build do not detract from a communitys character. It should be mentioned that any attempt to recreate a locations historic fabric is just that: a re-creation. If the historic village square has been torn up, a new development will not be able to recreate it in kind, only in spirit. Only the patina of age can truly create character, though after a few decades these new developments have the potential also to gain that patina. This has value, such as for re-creation of the heart of a historic district, but also has limitations.

80

Can help communities regain historic features. Building on the previous point, communities sometimes developed unique solutions to problems with their geography, solutions that came to help define their character. Venice, built on a series of islands, has always used its canals as a primary method of transporting people and goods. Waterfront cities originally built boardwalks because building a conventional street along a beach would be more expensive. While these touches are not absolutely necessary in the face of modern technology, they add to the character of the community. When the feel of a community cannot be retained or re-created as a whole (or where it is felt that it would be fake to attempt to), historic elements that made a community unique can be specified for inclusion as part of new construction or renovation in the code in order to give a community back a part of its historic identity. An example of this is in Benicia, California, a community on San Francisco Bay in its eastern suburbs. The citys old main street runs directly into the ocean. Along that street, historically, buildings were fronted by wooden galleries over the sidewalk. Benicias new Downtown Master Plan and Form-Based Code by Opticos Design and Crawford, Multari & Clark Associates allows the re-creation of the wooden galleries, even though they are within the public right-of-way, as a way of bringing back this unique aspect of the citys historic character. 114 The code does not require them, however, so it remains a question whether this recreated element will be consistently implemented. Documentation process for FBCs is very similar to process for historic surveys. A unique element to the development process of a form-based code is a process through which the existing conditions in the community are documented. When a conventional zoning code is developed, some very general information about the community may be gathered, but

81

form-based codes take this much farther by doing building-by-building and street-by-street analyses to determine a communitys character. In creating an FBC to protect and enhance the unique character of a community, documenting the micro-elements is critical. These micro-scale details are essential for a code to be successful in regulating development in character with a community. The primary elements to document at this scale are thoroughfares, buildings (form, placement, frontage, types, and use), lots and blocks, and civic spaces (parks and plazas). Additional elements that the community is interested in regulating may also be documented, such as architectural styles or landscaping. These micro-scale details will directly inform and become the content for many of the regulations within the various components of the code 115

A typical methodology for conducting a micro-scale documentation of a neighborhood involves filling out a lengthy form for each block that includes columns for information on each building. Rows of data include information such as lot depth and width, length of building faade, distance between entries to ground floor, etc. This allows comparison between buildings and blocks in order to formulate a view of a typical allowable footprint. (Example form included in Appendix B) The process is somewhat similar to conducting a historic resources survey. The data recorded in a historic survey includes information on each building such as style, window type, and materials, which is information that is also gathered as part of a survey for the development of a form-based code. Typically, a historic resources survey is somewhat more detailed in terms of historic research whereas a code designer would be more interested in existing building footprints, heights, and setbacks. The process of building-level analysis legitimizes the survey process among the urban design community, though its importance was already well known within the preservation world. Further, the point could easily be made in a city where a form-based code is being developed that the chance exists for a neighborhood analysis that includes both types of data to be done with the 82

same staff at the same time, thereby saving resources and money. It is, of course, imperative that a historic preservation staff member or preservation consultant be retained as part of the survey team in that case, in order to get usable results. While promoters of form-based coding encourage building-level character analysis and it is an important step to ensure that a code best matches a community that it is being developed for, it should be noted that thorough analysis takes substantial resources, so the actual level of analysis can vary. Completing a thorough analysis of the existing fabric is especially important in a historic context, in order that the urban design consultant developing the code fully understands the subtleties of the fabric in which they are working.

83

Chapter 5. Case Studies of Form-Based Codes in Historic Cities

Denver Community Description. Denver is often thought of a modern, western, progressive city. However, it does also carry significant history and thus significant historic fabric in its downtown and its older residential neighborhoods. As such, the creation of Denvers new form-based code did need to address historic preservation concerns during its creation and, as will be seen below, it addressed them thoughtfully and rigorously. Denvers history begins in 1858, when it was the epicenter of the Pikes Peak or Bust Gold Rush. Traces of gold were found in Denver itself but the real finds were in the foothills west of the city. Soon, finds near the city petered out, but it remained fledgling as a supply center to the prospecting and mining operations occurring further west. As railroads reached Denver, the city grew from 4,700 people in 1870 to 106,000 by 1890. By the 1870s, it gained a mansion district filled with influential citizens who had been made wealthy by the Rushes and then in 1879, the state legislature voted to move the state capitol from Golden to Denver. This signaled long-term prosperity for the city, though actual construction of a new capital building did not occur until 1908.

84

85

Figure 12 (previous page). At top, two maps illustrate the area covered by the East Colfax Street Plan, with legends provided at bottom right, At bottom left is seen a time-lapse series of computer renderings created by UrbanAdvantage intended to show the evolution of a sample portion of Colfax Street from an auto-oriented corridor to one that welcomes pedestrians. Source: East Colfax Street Plan Denver continued to grow through the twentieth century and its development mirrored the rest of America. In the early decades of the century, transport was dominated by an extensive streetcar system. With the rise of the automobile in the 1940s, the streetcars were removed and replaced by buses. In the 1960s, Interstates 25 and 70 were built through the city and traffic that had previously flowed through the citys retail thoroughfares was now funneled onto the freeways. The citys older commercial arteries declined and the creation of the citys new zoning code in the 1950s allowed them to become more auto-centric almost without restriction. Along Colfax Avenue, Denvers Main Street, filling stations replaced stately mansions lining the formerly idyllic, tree-lined boulevard. In recent years, though, Denver has become more aware of the urban design and environmental consequences of these mid-century choices and the development of the new form-based code gives it the opportunity to right some of the urban design mistakes of the last few decades. 116 Impetus for the new code. Prior to the development of a new code, the citys planning staff had grappled with several issues that made the need for enhanced regulation clear. First, around 1994, Denver began to experience a profusion of pop-tops, formerly single story bungalows that had a second-floor addition added. This created shadows and blocked sunlight from neighbors yards. This was the impetus for a pop-top ordinance, that regulated solar orientation of the new additions to ensure that sunlight could get into neighbors yards.

86

In the late 1990s, Denver began to suffer a large problem with teardowns, in which an older home would be demolished in order to build a much larger one on the same small lot. Denver was also having a proliferation of long houses, in which a formerly modestly-scaled house would receive an addition that extended its living area all the way to the rear of its lot, creating a building of unusual bulk in the neighborhood. In order to address both these issues, the teardown phenomenon being particularly troubling to preservationists, then-Planning Director Jennifer Moulton developed two ordinances, termed Quick Wins 1 and Quick Wins 2 that would attempt to regulate some of these problems. Quick Wins 1 dealt with site issues by preserving mature trees and specifying when the garage could face the alley instead of the street. Quick Wins 2 dealt with the problems more directly by establishing standards for height, massing, and bulk of new homes and required a distinct back yard. Nonetheless, by this time it was becoming clear that these were stopgap measures designed as reactionary measures to unexpected problems that had cropped up in the citys urban development. It was clear that Denver needed a zoning code that specified what it did want, not what it did not. 117 In the early 2000s, the mayor of Denver was John Hickenlooper, a strongly pro-business leader. Seeing the bureaucratic morass that zoning approvals in Denver had become, he also became a strong advocate for a revamp of the zoning code. 118 Code Development Process. Denvers new form-based code completely replaces the citys old 1957 zoning ordinance. It was a use-based code typical of its automobile-centric era of development and had been extended and changed significantly over the decades to accommodate new neighborhoods and special situations, making it an unwieldy and inconsistent patchwork of amendments.

87

The process for planning for a new zoning for Denver began indirectly in 1998 with the writing of Blueprint Denver. Closely following Denvers 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Blueprint Denver was released in 2002 and sought to create a plan for Denvers future that identified which areas of the city should be targeted for growth. Taking both land use and transportation into account, it broke the city into areas of stability and areas of change. The majority of city residential neighborhoods, including most of its pre-World War II historic fabric, were designated as Areas of Stability. Areas in close proximity to stations on Denvers new light rail system and the sites of the former Lowry Air Force Base and Stapleton Airport were among a set of areas set aside as Areas of Change, where large-scale development was to be promoted. The overall recommendations for areas across the city were laid down in an extensive report and attached map. 119 By identifying the fundamental characteristics of urban and suburban neighborhoods throughout the Denver city limits, Blueprint Denver set the framework that would allow for the development of a new zoning code. Before the city embarked upon a full-scale zoning code rewrite, it created a smaller code as a test case to gauge the effectiveness of form-based zoning in Denver. Called Main Street Zoning and developed in cooperation with the local business community, it was a complete rezoning of a three mile length of an aging retail corridor. East Colfax Avenue was a street whose fabric had slowly decayed to become low-density and significantly auto-oriented, not unlike many urban streets in America. Designated by Blueprint Denver as an Area of Change, planning staff sought to develop a unified vision for the corridor in order to restore a main street sense of place. Basing their analysis on a recent planning study completed of the corridor 120, they determined what was causing the low-slung auto-oriented development patterns on the street was regulation based on floor-area ratios (FAR) and inappropriately high parking

88

ratios, especially for some very small lots that lined the street. They also investigated what structures were creating appropriate form to the street edge, and found many were nonconforming to the existing zoning code. In order to fix the problems found, they determined that parking standards needed to be modified and design standards needed to be created that encouraged better use and engagement of the street through streetwalls and contextual design. Density also needed to be increased, in order to better leverage the high-quality transit infrastructure that runs along the corridor and to make better use of high-value land near downtown that was being used for large swaths of parking 121 (see Figure 12.) The corridor was broken down into three districts, with different proposed height requirements 38, 65, and 100 feet depending on the intensity of redevelopment envisioned there. Implementation of the plan involved coordination with public officials and a public input component, and the hardest sell to these groups was the need to reduce parking requirements along the street. In order to prove their point, planning staff provided supply and physical analyses of parking along the corridor and developed traffic analysis models. They also presented research on the physical effect that high parking requirements had had on the corridor over time. In the new zoning for this area, parking was set to zero for lots under 6250 square feet and reduced by 20-60% for all other lots. The new off-street requirements were one per 500 square feet for all non-residential uses and one per market-rate housing unit for residential uses. Landmarked buildings and buildings built prior to 1967 that already complied with the new form requirements were also exempt from parking requirements. Where parking requirements could not be met on-site, they were allowed to be met through lease agreements or parking management districts. As the largest rezoning in Denver since the writing of its 1950s code,

89

Main Street Zoning applied to 300 parcels, the process took less than six months, and it went into place in September 2005. In 2004, Hickenlooper hired Peter Park as the new Manager of Community Planning and Development, who oversaw the development of the new code. In order to solicit input from skilled professionals in the development field, a sixteen-person committee called the Zoning Code Task Force was created. This committee was involved in working out the minutiae of many of the codes provisions. This task force included developers, architects, planners, community advocates, city council members, and one preservationist. Reporting to them was a second committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee, which was made of representatives from the citys major neighborhood organizations and other groups whose mission involved a concern with the citys built form. Historic Denver, the citys major preservation advocacy group, was very actively involved and among the most vocal participants on this committee. Throughout its development, public input was solicited. Each of four drafts was released online and opened for public comment. To start development of the code, the city was divided into six development contexts derived from the Transect, ranging from fully suburban to several urban types, with downtown being the densest. Each context was given its own chapter for easy reference, and that chapter contains most regulations that apply to that context. Following photographic examples of the type of development the context would include, a list of building types that might be built in that context is included. The intended urban form for each group of building types is explained and then each type is described in detail with example axonometric views and site plans, followed by a table of requirements for height, design, and location on its site. 122

90

After laying out general standards for each urban/suburban context for each potential building type in each context, the code goes on to list several special contexts, such as industrial, campus, and airport zoning. Then, the code includes a chapter of general design standards. These include landscaping, lighting, and signage regulations. Next, a chapter is included that lists limitations on uses in each zoning type. While form-based codes are less focused on use, they still limit them to an extent. The final two chapters of the code are devoted to procedural requirements, descriptions of special overlay districts, and definitions. Inclusion of Historic Preservation Stakeholders. At first, Denvers preservation community was interested in the fine-tuning of the citys development regulations due to the proliferation of teardowns. However, as the city moved toward a complete rewrite of its zoning code, preservationists saw an opportunity to be on the front lines of a new regulatory framework that would allow them the power to address some of their development concerns and write safeguards for them into law. While, as expected, the code is the result of many voiced opinions being combined into one document, the influence of the input of preservationists is apparent in many places throughout the code. Many of them are subtle and are supported by other interest groups as well, such as the inclusion of a 2-story maximum height limit 123 along with a numerical height limit in order to allow for variation in ceiling height and roof form in order for new development to be more contextual to existing. Preservationists also influenced certain volumetric and massing requirements. The code also includes some aspects that are more obvious influences by preservationists: The inclusion of a preservation hardship provision. The zoning code provides a set of administrative adjustments in order to allow the zoning staff to make certain exceptions

91

to the code based on the inability of a property to meet the letter of the code without hardship. Two of them are applicable to preservation. One type is for historic properties, in which if it is found that conforming to the Codes regulations would have an adverse impact upon the historic character of the individual landmark or the historic district, if a historic district is involved. Another is to be used to allow a new structure to have better compatibility with an existing neighborhood, when the property could be reasonably developed in conformity with the provisions of [the Denver Zoning] code, but the proposed variance will result in a building form that is more compatible, in terms of building height, siting, and design elements, with the existing neighborhood in which the property is to be located. 124 Special uses allowed in Conservation Overlay Districts. The code includes areas designated specially as Conservation Overlay Districts. These areas cover similar areas to certain historic districts but are not otherwise related. Two such areas are defined initially by the code with the provision to ultimately establish others. These areas have special allowances depending on special needs in the place. For example, in the Curtis Park Conservation District, detached coachhouses (accessory dwelling units) are allowed to be constructed on lots where the historic home is still standing. This allowance overrules any regulations elsewhere in the code that ban them, including maximum lot coverage requirements. 125 Historic Structure Use Overlay. A special type of use overlay has been created that applies to any structure designated as historic in an underlying residential zone. This allows three uses to be established in the buildings, notwithstanding the use limitations of the underlying zoning: office (not including medical or dental), art studio, or bed and

92

breakfast lodging. 126 For these uses, parking requirements can be adjusted downward significantly if they present a hardship. 127 Block-sensitive setbacks. These are used when the blockface containing the lot has at least three structures already built. In this case, the front of the new building must not be closer to the street than the closest existing home and not farther away from the street than the farthest home. This keeps the building fronts contextual with each other. 128 Review of code. The Denver code is bold and wide-ranging. As only the second major American city (the first was Miami) to implement a form-based code across its entire area and to make it mandatory, Denver had few precedents to build upon to make the code fully customized to the many disparate and unique neighborhoods that comprise its urban fabric. Nonetheless, the 1,076-page document shows itself to be the thoughtful work of a dedicated team and many thoughtful public contributors, with the intent of enforcing a meaningful and major transition in the type of development constructed in the city. The code has only been in active effect since July 2010, and only required of all new projects since January 1, 2011. Thus, the full impact of the code is yet to be known. However, since it has been enacted, some impacts have already been seen. Retail convenience store chain 7-Eleven has been building many stores recently in Denver. It has been resistant to changing its standard prototype as necessary for construction under the new code, so the resultant building has essentially been the prototype building inelegantly turned away from the street but built up to it, with an entrance along the sidewalk. A McDonalds restaurant has also recently been constructed under the new code on the site of an accidental demolition of an older restaurant that had been constructed to the prototypical auto-oriented design of decades past. The new design,

93

despite resistance from the franchisees architect, is turned sideways and built up to the sidewalk with parking and drive-through at its rear. 129 These examples suggest that it will take some time for architects and corporations to get used to the new code, but enforcement is possible. As form-based codes proliferate across the country, corporations will likely create prototypes that are able to meet the new zoning standards in more elegant ways. Nonetheless, even these small design changes to long-held prototypes suggest the kind of major change the code has the potential to create citywide.

Charleston Community Description. Charleston, South Carolina is widely considered to be one of Americas most historic cities, and it is home to a large preservation community that actively stewards and protects the citys large cache of historic buildings, which range in age from the early eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth. Its preservation community is also one of the oldest in the United States. Leading that preservation community are two advocacy organizations, the Preservation Society of Charleston and the Historic Charleston Foundation. Impetus for the new code. Since before the widespread national popularization of the historic preservation movement, Charleston has been actively planning for the preservation of its past. The Old and Historic District in the Lower Peninsula of downtown Charleston, encompassing the original walled city, was the first historic district to be established in the United States, having been created in 1931. 130 From the 1970s to the present, Charleston has completed historic surveys of most parts of the city. In 1974, Charleston developed its first comprehensive Preservation Plan,

94

which was updated in 2008 by architecture firm Page & Turnbull based on review of changes over that thirty-year period and extensive public input. A central diagram to the report is a Character Map, which is the result of a windshield survey done of the city and identifies portions of Charleston that have a cohesive neighborhood character defined by dense groupings of historic resources, and therefore should be preserved. The remaining sections are judged to lack in cohesiveness and therefore are able to benefit from future development, and thus are designated transitional zones. 131 In order to ensure that new development in transitional zones is contextual with the historic city that surrounds it and with the scattered historic buildings that exist within the zones, the Preservation Plan makes several recommendations. The first is to establish citywide urban design principles which would also include these areas. Development of mixed-use structures is promoted where ground floor retail would be viable. An adjustment of parking requirements is recommended, in order to encourage appropriate scale in development. Finally, the adoption of a form-based approach to zoning is recommended. 132 Form-based zoning is marketed as a way to better articulate preferences for form and uses and also as a way to invite public input through the incorporation of public workshops in the development process that allows them to express preferences and concerns about density and design. Since Charleston still operates on a conventional zoning code, as-of-right regulations on some large lots allow for out-of-scale buildings or densities. 133 One of the sections of the city that was judged to be ripe for new development is a section of the peninsula stretching along Calhoun Street from the Cooper River waterfront west to Marion Square, and extending two to three blocks north and south from Calhoun along the waterfront, east of Alexander Street. Previously, the citys 2000 Downtown Plan identified the

95

collection of under-utilized sites in this area and determined that new planning goals were needed to guide future investments there. As a result, Charlestons city Department of Planning & Neighborhoods chose this area to engage in a further study of development options. The resultant study was developed throughout 2009 by a team led by architecture and planning firm Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, and was adopted by the Charleston City Council on February 9, 2010. This plan looks at the study area in much more depth than the general preservation plan, and incorporates traffic, economic, and marketing analyses into the scope, as well as an analysis of the urban and pedestrian character of the streetscape and built environment (See Figure 13.) Since Calhoun Street is one of the only streets that runs east-west across the entire peninsula, it tends to attract high-speed traffic and the lack of street parking only encourages that. The existing streetscape shows a wide variance in sidewalk widths and large gaps between clusters of street trees. Several pedestrian-unfriendly intersections also line its length. Most of the study area falls within Charlestons Flood Zone, which requires no occupiable space to be built below a flood line that varies by location to as much as seventeen feet above street level. This regulation tends to encourage first floor space to be used for parking, further deadening the streetscape. On the west end of the study area, near Marion Square, surface parking and singlestory retail uses are present in places, out of context with their surroundings. Along the waterfront, several parcels remain undeveloped and are owned by the City. 134

96

97

Figure 13 (previous page). At top, the map illustrates the area on the east side of the peninsula on which Charleston is located that the Calhoun Street Special Area Plan covers. At center left is shown the existing conditions on the corridor, relatively desolate and pedestrian-unfriendly for as historic a city as Charleston. At center right, a rendering of the proposed redevelopment along the corridor is shown, for a sample site. And at bottom, a sample of the form-based guidelines developed as part of the plan are shown. Source: Special Area Plan: Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront Building on conclusions made from its existing conditions analysis, the report lays down the framework and the recommended setbacks and other numerical regulations for a new set of development guidelines that would cover this area that have many of the characteristics of a form-based code. These guidelines were developed by form-based codes consultant Code Studio, based in Austin, Texas. The proposed guidelines would be an overlay to the existing zoning and thus likely be legally binding. However, the report does not actually formulate the form-based guidelines as an ordinance to be enacted and so no binding and enforceable changes have yet been made to the areas zoning; that step lies in the future. Nonetheless, at this time this is the first form-based code nationally to be proposed in such a historic place and so the reaction to its proposed creation by the stewards of the citys historic resources warrants examination. Unlike most form-based codes, these proposed guidelines would not seek to simplify or streamline the approval process for new buildings, only to lay down the citys preferences for contextual urban forms in a more specific way than conventional zoning and height limits were capable of. Indeed, even if new form-based guidelines are adopted, Charlestons powerful Board of Architectural Review will retain its full powers to override the guidelines and enforce its recommendations on massing, scale, materials, and details that are appropriate for the new building to fit into its historic setting. 135

98

Code Development Process. The proposed code was developed by Code Studio, an experienced firm that has developed tens of codes throughout the country. In the particular case of Charleston, it was clear to the coding team that they were dealing with historic fabric and so they chose to code to it as much as possible. The first step in doing this was understanding the historic environment they were attempting to emulate. This involved a study of street and aerial maps, the development of figure-ground diagrams, and selective on-the-ground observation and field measurements. Since a form-based code is not necessarily intended to recreate exactly what is already there, but only to emulate it to the extent desired, the buildings forms that are developed based on what exists are then tweaked slightly to provide new development at a density or of a massing that the municipality prefers. In Charleston, Code Studio was commissioned to help the city develop an urban fabric in the Calhoun Street corridor that is based on what exists there but is modified somewhat. Specifically, while Charleston is an extremely historic city, it is also a southern city, part of the Sun Belt, and thus growing quickly due to the migration of the American population to the southern states. As such, plans need to be made for its future growth, in the historic city center as well as in the more modern and less historic surrounding suburbs. Since the historic peninsula of Charleston is almost completely built-up, plans for its continued growth need to be focused on the careful further densification of this historic core. The primary way this is proposed to be done is through the densification of under-utilized areas with a less cohesive urban fabric, such as the Calhoun Street area. The proposed form-based code is intended to selectively densify portions of this core, and so its provisions bear this out while keeping specific control of the detailing of new

99

developments under the control of the citys Board of Architectural Review, to ensure consistency with the surrounding historic structures. Inclusion of Historic Preservation Stakeholders. Since it is not yet an operational form-based code that has been passed into law, the final form that a form-based code for Calhoun Street would take is not known, as its actual implementation would involve a lengthy public process (a public process did take place for the Calhoun Street Plan, but it did not focus on the form-based code features, specifically) and thereby modifications as desired by the community and various organizations with a stake would be made as part of the result. However, the development of this set of form-based standards raised concerns within the Charleston preservation community that are precedents for the type of concerns preservationists in Charleston and elsewhere may have with codes like this in the future, and thus are useful and important to study. The Preservation Society of Charleston specifically posted its concerns with the formbased aspect of the Calhoun Street Plan on November 9, 2009 as a Current Preservation Issue/Concern on its website with the heading The Society expresses serious concerns about the Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront Special Area Plan. 136 Excerpting the sections specifically critical to the form-based elements of the plan, the concerns read: The Form Based Code building forms as proposed are not compatible with historic building forms and they are too restrictive in terms of basic design elements such as window sizes and distance between doors and windows. The design elements of existing historic buildings must be taken into consideration when designing new buildings adjacent to historic districts. The recommended change to regulate maximum height of buildings by number of stories rather than height needs clarification. Regulating the height of new buildings is critical in historic districts and the current recommendations are not consistent and need further study. (As approved, there is conflicting language referring to stories and height limitation of 55.)

100

Concurrently, Charlestons other preservation organization, the Historic Charleston Foundation, posted a statement in support of the plan on its website. The second of the Preservation Societys points refers to a regulation that limits most new construction in Charleston to fifty-five feet tall, fifty in residential areas. Within fifty feet of a historic building rated 1 or 2, the highest ratings in the citys historic resources survey, the height of a new building cannot be taller than the height of the historic structure. 137 A third concern that Robert Gurley, Vice President of the Preservation Society of Charleston, raised with the code is that it includes a building type, the rowhouse, that specifically does not exist in Charleston. In fact, Charleston has only three rowhouses and they are a unique historic conglomeration because of their rarity. Gurley argued that allowing the inclusion of the rowhouse as a common building type would infringe upon the rarity of the type and by extension upset the delicate and established mix of building types that are used for housing in Charleston. 138 Neither of these questions were posed directly to the form-based code development team during the code development process because that aspect of public meetings has not yet occurred. However, I posed these questions to Lee Einsweiler, one of the proposed codes designers and principal at Code Studio.139 In terms of the first point, in which it is feared that the form-based code will not promote development that is compatible with historic buildings in basic design elements such as windows and doors, Mr. Einsweiler notes that this is a concern because many of the historic first-floor retail spaces in Charleston have very low transparency in their facades because they are essentially house forms with retail uses, as was typical in the 18th and early 19th centuries, whereas modern retailers have much higher expectations for faade transparency. The specific

101

guidelines on this point have not been developed, nor have guidelines for faade composition, so it should only be noted that the form-based code team acknowledges this aspect of the historic fabric and the guidelines will have to be developed in conjunction with the concerns of both retailers and preservation organizations. The second point regarding measurement of building height may be an example of lack of communication in this case, but its mention is useful to demonstrate a point often raised during the development of form-based codes. In order to ensure relatively consistent floor-tofloor heights and heights of windows, to allow for variation in roof shape, and to discourage developers from cramming units into every last foot of allowable height, heights are often specified in maximum floors as well as maximum number of feet. In this way, the developer either provides high ceilings in the units or a different type of roof such as a gable, both of which promote more variety in buildings than a code that allows for the maximum amount of units physically possible within a volume. The same measurement philosophy is applied in the Denver code. Finally, in terms of the addition of rowhouse building type in the proposed code, Mr. Einsweiler admitted its incongruity compared to the historic fabric, which is dominated by sideyard houses. However, the addition of rowhouses was chosen because it would allow for higher-intensity development than current models provide. It could potentially be looked at with a more purist perspective and/or there potentially could be a way to modify or reinvent the sideyard house form to allow for higher-intensity development. However, this seemed like a good compromise because of its relative compatibility with the historic scale, if not specific building type.

102

Review of Code. This code cannot be reviewed as a complete air-tight piece, as it has not yet been developed to that extent. However, it can be reviewed in terms of its intent as a solution to a problem confronting the city of Charleston. Charleston comes up against the unenviable challenge of curating growth within a historic context. By focusing on only these transition areas specifically for growth, the municipality is limiting the potential negative aesthetic impact of new development and focusing that development in areas that concurrently have the most open sites for development, thus the most potential for density, thereby limiting the development pressure on the more cohesive historic areas. This seems like a potentially very effective strategy. The form-based code is intended to be a guide to developers as to what the city is expects and is most likely to approve in the development areas, thereby limiting some trial-and-error on the part of the developer. Nonetheless, under the proposed code, new developments (at least in the Calhoun Street corridor) will remain under the jurisdiction of the citys Board of Architectural Review, thus providing an aesthetic safeguard to ensure that massing and detailing are in line with the surrounding historic fabric. While potentially unnecessary and overly bureaucratic in the case of a well-intentioned developer and a historic-minded architect, this proposed situations allows for as complete predictability as is possible in future development within the older historic areas of the city of Charleston, while being as friendly to new development as possible under the circumstances. While limiting, this system seeks to improve the existing regulatory framework in Charleston and thus make use of modern planning methods to allow Charleston to continue to retain the historic building stock that gives it a sense of place unlike any other American city.

103

Riverside Community Description. Riverside, Illinois is one of Americas first planned suburbs and is deeply historic, having been named a National Historic Landmark in 1970. Laid out in 1869 by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, it is defined by curving streets that are sunk slightly below the level of abutting lawns and a pair of common lawns with grassy knolls for passive recreation. 140 The house styles in the city are eclectic, varying from Victorian and Shingle-style homes from the late nineteenth century to Frank Lloyd Wrights Prairie-style Coonley House complex to high-style modernist houses to a few neo-historicist mansions of stereotypical suburban ilk built over the last few years. Lot shapes are irregular along the winding roads, providing uniquely different site conditions and views for each house. 141 The town is based around its train station that always has, and continues to, connect it with daily hourly passenger train service to downtown Chicago, ten miles away. The town has a small commercial district along both sides of the railroad tracks as they run through the center of the village. While the village also has a modern auto-oriented retail on two of the bordering arterial streets, the central historic shopping district has always been the towns commercial core and has provided space for small, local businesses. Impetus for the new code. During the 1920s, the Village adopted the new idea of zoning. However, the ordinance that it adopted at the time was quite generic and could have been used for any suburban town, including the setbacks and parking requirements that it mandated. In addition, it did not include a slew of subcodes that are considered standard in a modern ordinance, including signage or even a landscape ordinance, which was an issue given the historic importance of the communitys

104

landscape design. As of the early 2000s, the original 1920s zoning ordinance was still officially in use, but had become quite unwieldy due to various amendments over time. Even at that time, it still did not include landscaping or signage requirements. Rather than use the zoning code to discourage developers from building structures of incompatible design in the Village, the Village had essentially given up on the code and resorted to making the bureaucratic project approval process more difficult for these developers. Ultimately, the process got to the point where it hindered any new development from occurring in the Village. In the early 2000s, the decision was finally made by the Plan Review Committee and the Village Board to revisit the zoning ordinance and fix its many faults in order to make it functional again. 142 In order to work out the actual mechanics of the new zoning code, the Village of Riverside hired Camiros, Ltd. of Chicago as consultant. Unlike the codes in Denver and Charleston, there was never a stated intent to make the new Riverside code form-based, though ultimately the code did end up including several form-based elements. Elements that are now considered form-based that were included in the code were a three-dimensional envelope in which massing of new homes are required to fit within, the institution of maximum setbacks in the central commercial district, inclusion of architectural standards within the code, and specification of adherence to historic building patterns. 143 These elements were added to the code not as part of a pre-determined coding doctrine but because of a wish for the code to recognize the physical needs of the community itself. Arista Strungys of Camiros notes that creating a code for a historic community is, in some ways, easier than creating one for a more modern location because the physical place is already there on which to base the requirements of the new code. 144

105

106

Figure 14 (previous page.) Image at top left shows a portion of the street plan of the Village of Riverside, designed by preeminent landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. At top right is seen a portion of the 1936 Works Progress Administration map of the Village from which modern siting requirements for new houses are taken. Shown at center left is a diagram of the setback requirements for each lot in the historic Central Business District of Riverside, based on historic building setbacks on each lot. At center right is a set of form-based building envelopes created as part of the zoning code rewrite, intended to make new homes in the Village more contextual with older ones. At bottom is the villages water tower at left, designed by William LeBaron Jenney and a typical home in the community, seen at right. Source: Strungys, Riverside: A Master Planning Community Code Development Process. In the mid-2000s, the residential and commercial sections of the zoning ordinance were rewritten separately. The commercial code was tackled first because the business community wanted to reform the development process. 145 In each case, the code was modified to align the document more closely with the historic formal intent of the citys development patterns, and to encourage new development as long as it replicated the massing and street orientation of the buildings already present in the Village. There was a strong sense by residents of the Village that the historic design of the Village, both in terms of landscape of building design and orientation, is its preferred state (and, in fact, the reason why many of the residents choose to live in the Village) and so new development should be consistent with that form. 146 In addition to a full rewrite, the Village added new landscape and signage ordinances intended to require these elements to be replicated according to their historic forms and intents. The consultant began the process by first carefully studying that historic character. In Riverside, a photographic study of the community was done and a series of maps was created on which the building orientations and relationships to the street were studied (see Figure 14.) Inclusion of Historic Preservation Stakeholders. As a National Historic Landmark, and because many of its residents are history-minded designers themselves, historic preservation is a very important issue in Riverside, one that tends 107

to dominate any discussions of physical change. This was the case during the zoning code rewrites as well. The question was not so much whether to recognize the Villages historic form and stay consistent with it, but how to do that in the most effective way while adhering to the realities of a modern bureaucratic permit review process and modern materials and architectural forms. During the residential zoning rewrite, the decision was made to require all new homes to be set back from the lot line the same distance that homes were recorded to be in a 1936 map of Riverside that was created by the Works Progress Administration. An original intent by Frederick Law Olmsted was to require that the viewer could see through the lots so that the entire landscape would look somewhat transparent, so this requirement maintains that idea. 147 The residential code also lays down material standards that ban the use of a list of materials including jumbo brick, concrete masonry units, mirrored glass, metal wall panels, and several others on the exterior for use as a surface finish material. 148 While reformulating the commercial code, the hope was to reinforce the streetwall in the central commercial district along the railroad tracks, in order to maintain and enhance the existing character there. Therefore, based on the historic location of buildings on each lot in the downtown district, maximum setbacks were individually specified for each lot and codified in a map. On the other hand, less strict requirements were created for the auto-oriented retail district along the communitys eastern edge. While the code does require a streetwall in these locations, signage, parking, and landscape requirements are less strict. 149 Review of Code. It is interesting to note that the form-based zoning ordinance in Riverside was developed before form-based codes have enjoyed widespread publicity over the last five years and was a

108

direct response to a historic communitys individual needs rather than the result of a community jumping upon the most recent trend in the hope that it will solve its problems with placelessness. In an ideal world, this is how every form-based code should come to be and it is important especially in the case of historic communities that they understand their inherent character and their wishes for its future evolution before turning to a consultant to make that reality. Because Riverside understood what makes it special, its Village Board and citizen-run committees were able to work with the consultant in order that a code could be delivered that specifies an appropriate direction for the communitys future over the next couple of decades. While the code specifies far more than it did previously, it leaves the communitys historic preservation plan review apparatus in place, realizing that this is necessary in order to ensure the highest quality and most thoughtful construction in the community. By developing a code from scratch, Riverside and its consultant Camiros unintentionally avoided some of the baggage that comes with the form-based coding movement. It is not formbased in every aspect and so is more what the form-based coding community would consider a hybrid code. Thus, it follows the structure of a standard zoning code and does not intentionally include graphical elements except where necessary to explain ideas. In staying consistent with traditional zoning terminology and formatting, it lowers the learning curve for developers and architects in working with the new code, an issue cited in adoption of the new Denver code. 150 In the case of Riverside, despite its faults, the existing traditional zoning ordinance had been able to retain the communitys sense of place relative well, so a complete replacement of its underlying principles was not seen as necessary, only an extensive fine-tuning that included the addition of several form-based elements to make it prescriptive rather than proscriptive.

109

Chapter 6. Conclusion: A Guide for Preservationists in Cities Developing Form-Based Codes

Building on the points developed in the first four chapters and lessons learned from the case studies presented above, this final chapter presents this thesiss conclusions in the form of a guide that preservationists might use to be best informed during the development of a new formbased code in their historic city. The form-based codes movement markets itself to have huge advantages, some of which are definitely true (better potential urban design) and some that are likely not (faster turnaround times for developers). Preservationists should be cautious of some of the movements claims because they are not yet substantiated by the passage of time. Before a municipality commissions a form-based code, the community and preservationists within that community must embark on a period of self-study and factfinding in order to understand what problems they are attempting to address or solve by way of a new or revitalized zoning code. A code is only as good as the vision behind it, and the strongest beneficiary and the biggest proponent of that new vision should be the citizens and leadership of the municipality itself. Without strong and determined cheerleaders, a new code is unlikely to be passed with development policies and the teeth necessary to be able to achieve dramatic change. And without strong and

110

determined cheerleaders in the preservation community, a new code is unlikely to adequately address preservation issues. At this point in time, the quality of consultants that develop form-based codes varies widely. Some consultants do a full-scale analysis of the city and base the new code on the results, whereas others are less thorough in their analysis of existing context. Some firms develop a code from scratch whereas some calibrate the SmartCode to the conditions in each city in which they work. Because many larger code consultants do not yet fully understand form-based coding, some have been developing hybrid codes, which have the layout of a conventional zoning with the addition of design standards that specify bulk, materials, parking, and architectural features, and laid out in a more user-friendly graphics-intensive manner than that of a typical conventional zoning code. Nonetheless, these codes tend to be based around the idea of uses rather than physical form, which is the principal way in which the two classes of zoning codes fundamentally differ. The City of Phoenix was duped by this approach, having spent one million dollars to receive a use-based code similar to what it already had. 151 While it should be noted that the code examined in the Case Study for Riverside, Illinois earlier in this thesis is in fact, a hybrid code, that was exactly what the community was looking for and is a valid approach in some cases where the community knows what it is getting into. However, in some cases, communities have received hybrid codes because they were not well-educated about the intended result of their zoning reform. Since each code is different and specifically tailored to the intents and desires of a community, proper care and vetting should be used when picking a form-based coding consultant in order to ensure that the consultant understands the coding process well enough to be able to provide the community with

111

what it is asking for. In response to this need, the Form-Based Codes Institute publishes an RFQ template available on their website that is usable by any municipality and is intended to help better weed out the qualifications of prospective code development teams with the result of the municipality hiring a consultant with the knowledge and capabilities to develop a true form-based code. 152 Historic districts and city centers that are full of historic buildings, even when they are not officially designated as such, are delicate places. Additional effort and thought must be put into tailoring the proposed code to a historic context. Whereas in a stereotypically suburban area, a cursory survey of the citys urban form and the application of several existing pre-designed building types may be passable, in a historic area, a thorough survey of existing conditions must be performed and custom building types must be created in the code to match types and sub-types present in the historic place. It is possible that a recent historic resources survey can serve as the basis for the examination of existing conditions in the district, but further examination of urban design features present should be done. This extra research and tailoring will add more cost, but substantially more quality, to the code. Building on the previous point, preservationists must insist that character surveys be done by the code consultant of all historic or potentially historic areas. This will allow the consultant to truly understand the historic areas and propose more appropriate infill development for them. If there are no funds available for this work, it may be in the best interest of preservationists to complete the character surveys themselves or with volunteers and then work to ensure that their results are used by the consultant.

112

The building types that make sense for the city as a whole may not necessarily make sense in historic areas. For the sake of simplicity, a city-wide form-based code may only propose a set number of building types. Preservationists must ensure that the building types proposed are consistent with the neighborhoods they are intended to be constructed in.

A troubling part of the premise of form-based codes is that their public process is entirely front-loaded. For efficiency, they propose to gain a community consensus at the time of the codes development and then allow most or all reviews to be done internally as part of the standard administrative process. As the plan review process is intended to be very systematic, it is important that a mechanism be created to test the code at regular intervals to ensure that it is creating the type of development that is intended and providing the type of guidance that is needed, especially near or within historic areas. While developments under conventional zoning technically underwent a similar systematic process for approval, in many cities many recent zoning reviews have been done as oneon-one reviews with city zoning staff because the existing zoning was perceived as not able to create desired results 153. The idea of form-based zoning brings with it the potential to better regulate the results of administrative systematic plan reviews than was possible under conventional zoning, an ability that should be taken advantage of, but this only works if the demands of the code and thereby the results of plan review are kept consistent with the evolution of desired forms of new development in the city. Thus, preservationists (and other community groups) must push for a schedule or process for continued public process after the codes adoption. This will allow for preservationists to have at least indirect influence on proposed projects throughout the city and will allow

113

them to weigh on the codes continuing effectiveness, specifically the codes applicability to historic districts and their surrounding areas. Catching problems with the code in a continued public process will allow tweaks to be made to the codes standards where it is not working up to the level expected before large numbers of non-contextual or inappropriate structures are constructed. Specifically, form-based codes cannot serve as a substitute for historic commission plan review. Whether or not projects are approved administratively by the planning department, projects in historic districts must still undergo historic preservation review because even if the code seeks to be supportive of preservation, the staff that is approving projects in the planning department still may not have the background to be sympathetic to preservation concerns. Preservationists input in the development of form-based codes must think in terms of the future. While developing urban design standards that reinforce or re-create early twentieth century walkable urban fabric is in vogue now, it threatens to promote the widespread demolition of areas of recent past resources. While these are not widely regarded as historic by the general public yet, more progressive preservationists have begun to understand their historic value, and it is important that they not be left out of code development efforts, lest there be nothing left to preserve as a result. And, finally, the most important point to be made, one that the rest of these points imply but should be stated plainly, is that the preservation community must be involved in the codes development process. Up to this point, preservationists have not been widely represented in the development of new form-based codes, and many seem to show little interest in them. As a result, many new form-based codes do not represent the best

114

interests of preservation. Form-based codes present the single best opportunity at the current time to guide a communitys general urban form for decades to come, and they are equally applicable to historic, semi-historic, and non-historic neighborhoods. A preservation community that does not participate in development of their citys new form-based code cedes control of the citys urban form completely to groups with other interests that may or not be sensitive to historic preservation. Preservationists are used to being reactionary and they are used to being the underdogs, but in this case, the correct approach is to be up front and a part of the public process.

115

Endnotes
Jason T. Burdette, Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning? M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004. 3. 2 Chad Emerson. The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2007. 22. 3 Burdette 4 4 Carol Willis, Form Follows Function: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995. 23. 5 Burdette 5 6 Burdette 7 7 Emerson 23 8 Burdette 8-9 9 Burdette 9 10 Emerson 31-32 11 Emerson 37 12 Emerson 24. Excerpted from Standard Zoning Enabling Act, Section 3. 13 Emerson 28 14 Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life and Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. 237-238. 15 Burdette 11-12 16 Jill Grant, Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2006. 197. A report was presented on form-based zoning at the 2004 Conference of the American Planning Association by Megan Lewis, AICP. Panels on the subject were included in the 2005 and 2006 conferences, as well. However, it is noted that beyond these discussions, the APAs support for form-based coding has been limited. However, in 2011, the APA gave the new code for Miami (Miami 21) its National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice and focused its spring training sessions on FBCs, so there are signs that its support for the movement is growing. Source: Robert Steuteville, Tysons Corner Plan, Miami 21 Honored by APA, 12 January 2011. http://newurbannetwork.com/article/tysons-corner-plan-miami-21-honored-apa-13858. Accessed 6 July 2011. 17 One of these is Leslie E. Kettren, AICP, PCP, Form-Based Codes in 7-Steps: The Michigan Guidebook to Livability. Milford, MI: Michigan Chapter, Congress for the New Urbanism, 2010. Published and available for purchase online at the time of this writing at http://cnumichigan.memberlodge.org/books. 18 th Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon, et al., New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide, 4 ed., Ithaca, NY: New Urban News Publications, 2009. 12. 19 A typological note: Throughout this paper, The New Urbanism is referred to as New Urbanism, with capitalized letters. Form-based coding and historic preservation are not capitalized. While New Urbanists generally capitalize the title in every use, capitalization here does not signify adherence to their beliefs. Rather, New Urbanism is a vague terminology which could refer to a new urban idea or the like if left uncapitalized. On the other hand, historic preservation is well-understood to be a specific movement whether capitalized or not. 20 Joanna Lombard, The Architecture of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, New York: Rizzoli, 2005. 44-47. 21 Grant 81 22 Grant 62 23 Todd W. Bressi, ed. The Seaside Debates: A Critique of the New Urbanism. New York: Rizzoli, 2002. 18. These words are in an essay by Stefanos Polyzoides entitled The Congress for the New Urbanism and were spoken in the late 1980s by Jaquelin Robertson, dean of the University of Virginias architecture school during that period. 24 John A. Dutton, New American Urbanism: Re-forming the Suburban Metropolis, Milan: Skira, 2000. 29. 25 Peter Katz, The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. 2-17. 26 Grant 178. Not helping the movements credibility, Duany has actually been quoted as promoting the idea of New Urbanism causing gentrification and displacement of the poor, seeing gentrification as a natural cycle for well-designed urban areas. He has said What spokesmen for the poor call gentrification is actually the timeless cycle of a free society organically adjusting its habitat (Source: Grant 70) However, Duany is noted to actively encourage and thrive upon controversy, so it is unknown how much of what he says are his true beliefs and the true intents of the New Urbanist movement.
1

116

Robert Steuteville, New Urban Neighborhoods Make Big Gains. New Urban News, Jan.-Feb. 2004. http://newurbannetwork.com/article/new-urban-neighborhoods-make-big-gains. Accessed 30 January 2011. 28 Both developments are discussed in Bressi,ed., Seaside Debates. For Civano, see page 93 of that source. For Cornell, see page 110. 29 Sabina Deitrick and Cliff Ellis. New Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study of Pittsburgh. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 70 No. 4, Autumn 2004. 430-433. 30 James R. Elliott, Kevin Fox Gotham, and Melinda J. Milligan. Framing the Urban: Struggles Over HOPE VI and New Urbanism in a Historic City. City & Community 3:4 (Dec. 2004), 376. 31 Meredith Marsh, Striking the Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street. M.S. Thesis in Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 2009. 100-123. 32 Deitrick and Ellis, 436-437. 33 Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, New York: North Point Press, 2000. 65. 34 Steuteville, Langdon, et al. 14-17,21. 35 Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 340, 344. 36 Emily Talen, Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies 36:8 (1999), 1368. 37 Grant 7 38 Emily Talen, The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature Vol, 15, No. 2: 171-183. 39 On page 84, Jill Grant argues that public transportation is often not offered near new New Urbanist developments. While her research appears to be extensive, she does not share specific sources for her research, however so the basis of this statement is unknown. A wide variety of developers have been involved in the construction of New Urbanist developments, so amenities vary widely by location and developer. While the ability to use public transit is dependent on the transit infrastructure available, In the Chicago area, which has a relatively high-quality public transportation system, recent New Urbanist developments appear to have at least made attempts to be well-connected to public transportation. An example is the Prairie Crossing subdivision constructed in 2004 and located in Grayslake, Illinois. Grayslake is an exurb of Chicago, located about forty miles north of its city center. Nonetheless, Prairie Crossing is located across the street from two stations on Metra, Chicagos suburban commuter rail system. Source: Trine Tsouderos, New Grayslake Homes Aim to Combat Sprawl, Chicago Tribune, December 15, 2004. 40 Randall Crane, On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Transit or Increase It?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15 Winter 1996, 117-126. Available online at http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=29. This source is currently fifteen years old, so more recent research may have been done to directly correlate New Urbanism with higher use of public transportation, but that research is unknown to the author. 41 Grant 100 42 Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 183. 43 Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 185. 44 Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 24-25. 45 th Robert Campbell, Visions and Revisions: A Special Section Celebrating the National Trusts 50 Anniversary. Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol. 51, no. 5:Sept.-Oct. 1999. 16. 46 Andres Duany, Letters: New Urbanism Bites Back. Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol. 52, no. 1: Jan.-Feb. 2000. 8, 10. 47 While he is not at the forefront of the dialog surrounding New Urbanism in the same way that Andres Duany is, architect Stefanos Polyzoides, principal at experienced New Urbanist firm Moule & Polyzoides seems to have a more respectful view of historic preservation. In reference to its value, he states "A genuine architectural culture
can only exist within the accumulated experience afforded by historical continuity. For architecture and urbanism to prosper as disciplines, they need the wisdom and guidance of enduring values, traditions, methods and ideas." (Source: Moule & Polyzoides website, retrieved 5 June 2011) In the early 1980s, before New Urbanism became a wide-spread movement, Moule & Polyzoides was founded as a historic preservation firm. (Source: Will Holloway, A Sense of Place: A Southern California Firm Redefines the Relationship

27

117

between Architecture and Urbanism, Period Homes, November 2006. Accessed online at http://www.periodhomes.com/Previous-Issues-06/NovProfile06.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011.) 48 http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes 49 Design guidelines are typically not law in themselves, though they may be embedded in a design review process that is law, such as a preservation design review. (Source: Kaizer Rangwala, Why Design Guidelines, on their Own, Dont Work, blog post on the New Urban Network website, 22 December 2010. Available online at http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/kaizer-rangwala/13778/why-design-guidelines-their-owndon%E2%80%99t-work. Retrieved 5 June 2011.) 50 History page of the website of the Form-Based Codes Institute, located at http://www.formbasedcodes.org/history 51 David Walters, Designing Community: Charrettes, Masterplans, and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. 84-85. 52 Walters 88 53 Steuteville, Langdon, et al. 388. 54 Peter Katz, Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning. Planning, Vol. 70, no. 10: Nov. 2004, 20. 55 Personal communication with Carol Wyant, 28 February 2011. 56 Bressi, ed., 59-63 57 Miami Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, Downtown Kendall Charrette: Charrette Master Plan Report Executive Summary, June 1998. Available online at http://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/udc/Downtown_Kendall_Executive_Summary.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2011. 58 Mary E. Madden and Bill Spikowksi, Place Making with Form-Based Codes. Urban Land Vol. 65, no. 9:Sept. 2006, 176. 59 http://www.sacog.org/completestreets/toolkit/files/docs/Dover%20Kohl%20&%20Partners_Columbia%20Pike%20Form%20Based%20Flyer.pdf 60 Ben Giles, Arlington Ponders Balance on Columbia Pike Development, Washington Examiner, Jan. 20, 2011. Accessed online at http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/01/arlington-ponders-balance-columbiapike-development. Retrieved 5 June 2011. 61 Kafia Hosh, Columbia Pike Streetcar Plans Take Shape, Washington Post Nov. 16, 2010. Available online at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/columbia_pike_streetcar.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011. 62 Personal Communication with Carol Wyant, 20 June 2011. 63 Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler, 13 April 2011. 64 To download the code, go to http://www.smartcodecentral.com DPZ does charge for copies of the Code Calibration Manual. 65 The Neighborhood Conservation Code is available free of charge at http://www.transect.org/codes.html. The code is encouraged and intended to be modified further to include the specific needs of the individual community. 66 Emerson 57-59 67 In-Person Interview with Carol Wyant, 20 November 2010. 68 Jonathan Hiskes, Digital Designer Shows What Future Towns Could Look Like, Grist (online publication), 5 March 2010. Available at http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urban-advantage-steve-price-envisioningfuture-urbanism. Retrieved 5 June 2011. The companys website is located at http://www.urban-advantage.com/. 69 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 17-18 70 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 28 71 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 39 72 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 59 73 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 62 74 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 64 75 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 78 76 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 84-85 77 Emerson, 53-55 78 Emerson, 65-66

118

Walters 110 The Dangerous Minds of Urban Planners, Open Market blog, http://www.openmarket.org/2010/08/12/thedangerous-minds-of-urban-planners/ Published Aug. 12, 2010. Accessed 6 February 2011. 81 Jeffrey R. Purdy, AICP, Form-Based Codes New Approach to Zoning. Smart Growth Tactics Issue no. 28: Dec. 2006. Published by the Michigan Association for Planning. http://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2011. 5. 82 Howard Kelly, Frank Lloyd Wright and Form-Based Codes, blog post on blog entitled Old Cities, Good Ideas, 12 June 2010. Available online at http://oldcitiesgoodideas.blogspot.com/2010/06/flw-and-form-based-codes.html. Accessed 5 June 2011. In this post, the author recounts an episode at a planning meeting in Riverhead, New York where an older architect stood up and explained that good architecture is poetry and that he believed that good architecture was impossible under restrictions as prescriptive as form-based codes. The architect posed the question as to whether Frank Lloyd Wrights work would have been possible under a form-based code? The blogger believes that, since his work is contextual with the surrounding neighborhood in Oak Park, for example, Frank Lloyd Wrights working actually would be legal under a form-based code. 83 Purdy 5 84 Purdy 5 85 John M. Barry, Form-Based Codes: Measured Success through Both Mandatory and Optional Implementation. Connecticut Law Review Vol. 41, no. 1: Nov. 2008, 322. 86 Langdon, Philip. The Not-So-Secret Code, Planning, Vol. 72 No. 1, Jan. 2006, Chicago: American Planning Association. 24-29. 87 Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, 208 88 Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, 210 89 Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 283-284 90 There are entire suburbs near Chicago, River Grove as an example, that have always been based around their commuter rail stations and have relatively dense, walkable urban forms in fact, their urban form is not that much different from the dense city of Chicago itself except that the entire communities are designed in a vernacular modernism that is mostly buff colors of brick and stone. It is consistent and has a sense of order and yet each house or building is slightly different, not unlike the older urban neighborhoods that New Urbanists admire. 91 Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 280-281 92 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 41-47. 93 Ames, David and Richard Wagner, eds. Design and Historic Preservation: The Challenge of Compatibility. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 2009. 30. These points are brought up in an essay entitled Defining Context: Promoting a Greater Level of Design Innovation in Historic Districts, by Kate R. Lemos of Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners. 94 Grant 181 95 The Calhoun Street plan for Charleston, discussed in the Charleston Case Study, specifies rowhouses as a building type. Currently, the entire city of Charleston has exactly three rowhouses and they create an interesting historic grouping in themselves. It is the view of some preservationists in Charleston that introducing rowhouses to the city is not historically appropriate and shows a lack of due diligence on the part of the consultant involved in the plan. However, as is shown in the case study, the introduction of this building type was made in this draft code as a compromise to add historic forms while increasing density in the targeted area of the city. Source: Charleston plan, and interview with Robert Gurley 96 Burdette 19 97 Grant 181 98 Jill Grant applies this claim of lack of diversity and urban messiness to all New Urban communities. See Grant 183. 99 During a phone interview on 25 January 2011, James Lindberg, who worked on the new Denver code, expressed a wish that the new code had included a larger range of building types, because he didnt feel the set that was included in the code was adequate for use in historic neighborhoods. In the position statement quoted from in the second case study, Robert Gurley of Charleston expresses concern that the form-based code may not offer enough options to create the finely-grained fenestration patterns of historic neighborhoods.
80

79

119

Joseph P. Schwietermann and Dana Caspall, Zoning in The Encyclopedia of Chicago. Available online at http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1401.html. Accessed 6 June 2011. 101 The Chicago Zoning Ordinance has a minimum parking ratio of one off-street parking space per nongovernment-subsidized dwelling unit, regardless of the size of the dwelling unit or the density of the development. The minimum parking ratio can be reduced by 50% if the building is an adaptive reuse project if its front door is within 600 feet of a subway or commuter rail station entrance. New construction projects can have their minimum parking ratio reduced by up to 25% if their entrance is within 600 feet of a subway or commuter rail station entrance, but only with special permission of the Zoning Administrator. Thus, even a new building built directly adjacent to a subway line is required to have a minimum of 0.5 off-street parking space per dwelling unit. Since, typically the courtyard buildings that make up large parts of Chicagos neighborhoods currently have no off-street parking and are not within 600 feet of a rail line, they would be required to quite a significant number of parking spaces. 102 In order to understand the density reduction a developer would encounter if attempting to replace one of these buildings, the current allowable zoning was checked for one a typical one of these buildings in a typical neighborhood and location where one might be located. The building tested is located at 4827-33 N. Rockwell Ave. in the Lincoln Square neighborhood. Like all the buildings around it, it was built in the early 1920s. It has approximately 27 units and a building square footage of approximately 29,250 square feet on a lot area of approximately 11,599 square feet (Floor Area Ratio = 2.52.) The building currently has no off-street parking and is three stories tall over a raised English basement and takes up nearly the entire area of its lot, excluding its central courtyard. In contrast, most of Lincoln Square is zoned RS-3, which means a multi-unit building with three or more units would not even be legal to be built there, even though many exist grandfathered in. However, to test a conservative case, the building in question is located in an RT-4 zone, the densest zone commonly found in this neighborhood and a zone type that allows low-density multi-unit buildings. Therefore, under its current zoning, a new building on lot would only be allowed to have 11 units with a maximum Floor-Area Ratio of 1.20, so a maximum building square footage of 13,200 square feet. In addition, the building would have to be set back from the street, rear alley, and adjacent lots on all sides and would be required to have 11 parking spaces. Thus, ignoring the increased cost of providing the off-street parking spaces, the developer would only be able to legally build 45% of the current floor area and 41% of the units that currently exist on the site, grandfathered into the existing 85year old building. From this basis, it would be economically unwise for the developer to tear down the existing building, and so the conclusion that many of these older buildings stand because new construction cannot be build even close to as dense seems to be sound. Since most cities continue to have conventional zoning ordinances intended to limit density, just as Chicago does, it seems likely that many older buildings around the country continue to stand for this reason. Sources: Chicago Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 17-2 and 17-10; Chicago Zoning Map, available online at https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/. Accessed 6 June 2011; Cook County Assessor online property assessment webpage for the chosen example property. 103 Phone Interview with James Lindberg, 25 January 2011. Interestingly, the City of Chicago does have an ordinance on the books that was passed in 2005 and requires all construction projects in the city from 2007 onward to recycle 50% of all recyclable construction waste and submit forms to the city as proof after the project is completed. However, the ordinance appears to be little-enforced. Thus, in some municipalities, requiring developers to make better use of construction waste may be a question of better enforcement more than political will. If such laws were better upheld, demolition costs to developers could increase, in some cases prompting them to reuse rather than demolition. Ordinance description: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doe/supp_info/construction_anddemolitiondebrisrecycling.html. Accessed 4 July 2011. 104 Donald C. Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago: Planners Press, 2004. 153-157. 105 Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler, Principal, Code Studio. 13 April 2011. 106 Josh White, As Good as New?, Canadian Architect Nov. 2007. Available online at http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000217108&type=Print%20Archives. Accessed 6 June 2011.

100

120

LEED standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It is Americas leading system for rating the sustainable of buildings, especially new construction. It is deeply flawed, especially in terms of its lack of recognition of historic preservation as a sustainable alternative. Nonetheless, it is a respected and widely-used system in the design world. 108 In the LEED system, guidelines for natural ventilation are benchmarked to The Carbon Trust Good Practice Guide 237 Natural Ventilation in Domestic Buildings A Guide for Designers; Developers and Owners (1998). 109 US Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey. Accessed at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html. This information is from Table C1. The average energy consumption for commercial buildings built before 1920 was 80,127 btu/sq. ft., for 1990s buildings it was 88,834 bt/sq. ft., and for early 2000s buildings, It was 79,703 btu/sq. ft. For all years between these dates, average energy consumption was higher, peaking at 100,077 btu/sq. ft. during the 1980s. 110 City of Denver Department of Community Planning and Development. Denver Zoning Code. As adopted June 25, 2010. Section 9.4.3.7. Available at http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/432507/Default.aspx. Accessed 15 December 2010. 111 The proposed code was developed in conjunction with Farr Associates, a respected firm specializing in sustainable urbanism based in Chicago. Often considered an outsider during the code planning process, many of their ideas were rejected out of hand. The major changes made to the code based on community opposition after it was initially proposed were: require building coverage on only 25 percent of the lot but offer incentives for more; allow parking along the side of the building where there is space; allow nonconforming structures to be rebuilt after fires or other disasters; allow drive-through windows. (Source: Mary Ann Ford, Main Street Accord: Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code, The Pantagraph August 14, 2010, A1) The drive-through window issue appears to have been quite contentious. As Dale Nafziger stated it in his editorial deriding the proposed code in The Pantagraph, The original plan didnt allow for drive-throughs. That affected McDonalds, Walgreens, dry cleaners, and more. The uproar over that absurd proposal caused it to be quickly withdrawn. (Source: Dale Nafziger, Form-Based Code is Problem, Not Answer, The Pantagraph June 7, 2009, E5) 112 Mary Ann Ford, Main Street Accord: Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code, The Pantagraph August 14, 2010, A1. The Pantagraph is the local newspaper of Bloomington, Illinois. 113 Mary Ann Ford, Optional Code? Normal Mayor Wants to Give Developers a Choice, The Pantagraph January 12, 2011, A1. 114 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 221 115 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 126 116 Historical sketch derived from A Short History of a Long Street. From City of Denver, East Colfax Plan, 2004. 117 Phone Interview with James Lindberg, 25 January 2011. 118 Phone Interview with Steven Oliver, Department of Development Services, City of Denver. 23 March 2011. 119 The Blueprint Denver report and map are available online, at the time of this writing, at this URL: http://www.denvergov.org/Planning/BlueprintDenver/tabid/431883/Default.aspx 120 Denver Community Planning and Development. East Colfax Plan: Main Street Zoning: Process, Outcomes, Lessons. Powerpoint presentation for Railvolution 2006. www.railvolution.com/rv2006_pdfs/rv2006_227b.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2011. 121 Denver Community Planning and Development. East Colfax Plan. 122 An example section like this would be Denver Zoning Code, Section 4.3.3.4 123 Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.7.1. This is the general height limit for residential structures throughout the code. 124 Denver Zoning Code, Section 12.4.7.6 (B) and (C) 125 Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.4.3.7 126 Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.4.4.8 127 Denver Zoning Code, Section 12.4.5.3, see Table 128 Denver Zoning Code, Sections 13.1.2.3 (G) and Section 13.1.2.2. While this provision is seen in many codes across the country, it was noted as a preservation-sensitive provision of the new Denver code during phone interview with Steven Oliver. 129 Phone Interview with Steven Oliver, 23 March 2011.

107

121

Page & Turnbull, Vision | Community | Heritage: A Preservation Plan for Charleston, South Carolina, 2008. 134. Available online, at the time of this writing, at: http://www.charlestoncity.info/dept/content.aspx?nid=1247 131 Page & Turnbull, 106. 132 Page & Turnbull, 47-48. 133 Page & Turnbull, 138. 134 Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, Special Area Plan: Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront, 2010. 20-29. Available online, at the time of this writing, at: http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/calhounst_plan_web.pdf 135 Chan Krieger Sieniewicz 64 136 Accessible, at the time of this writing, at: http://www.preservationsociety.org/program_currentdetail.asp?icID=25 137 Chan Krieger Sieniewicz 27-28 138 Phone Interview with Robert Gurley, Vice President of the Preservation Society of Charleston, 2 February 2011. 139 Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler 140 Riverside: A Master Planning Community. Presentation by Arista Strungys. www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Resources/22470_DavisNikolas.pdf . Accessed 8 February 2011. 141 Walking tour of Riverside led by Charles Pipal, Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission 142 Interview with Kathleen Rush, Former Village Manager of Riverside 143 Arista Strungys, Riverside: A Master Planning Community 144 Phone Interview with Arista Strungys, Project Manager, Camiros, Ltd. 28 March 2011. 145 Phone Interview with Kathleen Rush. 22 March 2011. 146 In-Person Interview with Charles Pipal, Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission. 10 March 2011. 147 Phone Interview with Arista Strungys 148 Riverside Zoning Code, Section 10-4-3 (G). 149 Phone Interview with Arista Strungys 150 Phone Interview with Steven Oliver 151 Kaizer Rangwala, Hybrid codes versus form-based codes, New Urban News April/May 2009. 12-13. 152 Available for download at http://www.formbasedcodes.org/sample-rfq 153 This was stated to be the case in Riverside, Illinois in the early 2000s, because their existing zoning code was perceived as being so outmoded as to be completely ineffective. (Source: Interview with Kathleen Rush) In many cities, the Planned Unit Development process has also become very commonly-used as a substitute for the existing zoning code. In the Planned Unit Development process, a custom zoning code is essentially written in conjunction with city planning staff for a development where it is believed by the developer that the existing zoning will not allow them to complete the development as desired. (Source: Emerson 34-35)

130

122

Bibliography ----. The Dangerous Minds of Urban Planners, Open Market blog, http://www.openmarket.org/2010/08/12/the-dangerous-minds-of-urban-planners/ Published Aug. 12, 2010. Accessed 6 February 2011. Ames, David and Richard Wagner, eds. Design & Historic Preservation: The Challenge of Compatibility. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2009. 17-40. Barry, John M. Form-Based Codes: Measured Success Through Both Mandatory and Optional Implementation. Connecticut Law Review. Vol. 41 no. 1 (Nov. 2008): 305-337. Berg, Nate. Brave New Codes. Architect. Vol. 99 no. 7 (July 2010): 50-53. Bohl, Charles C. New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate. 2000. v. 2, 761-801. Bressi, Todd W. The Seaside Debates: A Critique of the New Urbanism. New York: Rizzoli, 2002. Burdette, Jason T. Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning? M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004. Campbell, Robert. Visions and Revisions: A Special Section Celebrating the National Trusts 50th Anniversary. Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Vol. 51, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1999): 9-24. City of Denver Department of Community Planning and Development. Denver Zoning Code. As adopted June 25, 2010. Available at http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/432507/Default.aspx. Accessed 15 December 2010. Congress for the New Urbanism. Charter of the New Urbanism. http://www.cnu.org/charter Crane, Randall. On Form Versus Function: Will the New Urbanism Reduce Transit or Increase It?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15 Winter 1996, 117-126. Available online at http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=29. Deitrick, Sabina and Cliff Ellis. New Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study of Pittsburgh. Journal of the American Planning Association Vol. 70 Issue 4 (Autumn 2004): 426-442. Duany, Andrs. New Urbanism Bites Back. Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Vol. 52, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2000): 8, 10. Duany, Andrs and Emily Talen. Making the Good Easy: The SmartCode Alternative. Fordham Urban Law Journal 29:4 (April 2002), 1445-1468. Duany, Andrs, Elizabeth Plater-Zybek, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000. 123

Duany Plater-Zybek and Company. Welcome to SmartCode Central. SmartCode Central. http://www.smartcodecentral.org/index.html (Accessed October 7, 2010) Dutton, John A. New American Urbanism: Re-forming the Suburban Metropolis. Milan: Skira, 2000. Einsweiler, Lee. Principal, Code Studio. Phone Interview, 13 April 2011. Elliott, James R., Kevin Fox Gotham, and Melinda J. Milligan. Framing the Urban: Struggles Over HOPE VI and New Urbanism in a Historic City. City & Community 3:4 (Dec. 2004), 373-394. Ellis, Cliff. The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design. Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 263-293. Emerson, Chad. The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2007. Ford, Mary Ann. Main Street Accord: Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code, The Pantagraph August 14, 2010, A1 Ford, Mary Ann. Optional Code? Normal Mayor Wants to Give Developers a Choice, The Pantagraph January 12, 2011, A1. Freeman, Allen. Old Neighborhood, New Urbanism: What Architect Raymond Gindroz Envisions for the Streets of Baltimore. Preservation. 1998 Jan.-Feb. v. 50 no. 1, pp. 18-20. Gantt, Harvey. New Urbanism Meets the Existing City. Places Vol. 12 Issue 1 (October 1998): 84-86. Giles, Ben. Arlington Ponders Balance on Columbia Pike Development, Washington Examiner, Jan. 20, 2011. Accessed online at http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/01/arlingtonponders-balance-columbia-pike-development. Retrieved 5 June 2011. Grant, Jill. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2006. Gurley, Robert. Vice President, Preservation Society of Charleston. Phone Interview, 2 February 2011. Hayden, Dolores. Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. Herlitz, Jeff and Martin Zimmerman. Community and the Form-Based Code. Urban Land. 2009 June, v. 68 no. 6 pp. 88-90. Hiskes, Jonathan. Digital Designer Shows What Future Towns Could Look Like, Grist (online publication), 5 March 2010. Available at http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urbanadvantage-steve-price-envisioning-future-urbanism. Retrieved 5 June 2011. Holloway, Will. A Sense of Place: A Southern California Firm Redefines the Relationship between Architecture and Urbanism, Period Homes, November 2006. Accessed online at 124

http://www.period-homes.com/Previous-Issues-06/NovProfile06.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011. Hosh, Kafia. Columbia Pike Streetcar Plans Take Shape, Washington Post Nov. 16, 2010. Available online at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/columbia_pike_streetcar.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011. Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Janson, Jean Ellen. An Analysis of Public and Private Design Review: Neo-Traditional Development Standards and Historic Preservation Ordinances. Masters Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Katz, Peter. Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning. Planning. 2004 Nov., v. 70 no. 10, pp. 16-21. Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Kelly, Howard. Frank Lloyd Wright and Form-Based Codes, blog post on blog entitled Old Cities, Good Ideas, 12 June 2010. Available online at http://oldcitiesgoodideas.blogspot.com/2010/06/flw-and-form-based-codes.html. Accessed 5 June 2011. Kettren, Leslie E. Form-Based Codes in 7-Steps: The Michigan Guidebook to Livability. Milford, MI: Michigan Chapter, Congress for the New Urbanism, 2010. Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of Americas Man-Made Landscape. New York: Touchstone, 1993. Langdon, Philip. The Not-So-Secret Code: Across the U.S., Form-Based Codes are Putting New Urbanists Ideas into Practice. Planning. 2006 Jan., v. 72 no. 1 pp. 24-29. Levi, Daniel J. Does History Matter? Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Fake Historic Architecture and Historic Preservation. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2005 Summer, v. 22 no. 2, pp. 148-159. Lindberg, James. Director of Preservation Initiatives, Mountains/Plains Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Phone Interview, 25 January 2011, and subsequent personal communication. Lindberg, James. Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation: An Opportunity for Collaboration. Unpublished white paper. Lombard, Joanna. The Architecture of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. New York: Rizzoli, 2005. 125

Madden, Mary E. and Bill Spikowski. Place Making with Form-Based Codes. Urban Land. 2006 Sept. v. 65 no. 9 pp. 174-178. Marsh, Meredith. Striking the Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street. M.S. Thesis in Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 2009. Miami Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, Downtown Kendall Charrette: Charrette Master Plan Report Executive Summary, June 1998. Available online at http://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/udc/Downtown_Kendall_Executive_Summary.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2011. Moe, Richard and Carter Wilkie. Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1997. Muschamp, Herbert. Can New Urbanism Find Room for the Old?New York Times, June 2, 1996, Architecture View section. Nafziger, Dale. Form-Based Code is Problem, Not Answer, The Pantagraph June 7, 2009, E5 Nolon, John R. Flexibility in the Law: The Re-engineering of Zoning to Prevent Fragmented Landscapes. New York Law Journal Feb. 18, 1998: 5-11. Oliver, Steven. Department of Development Services, City and County of Denver. Phone Interview, 23 March 2011. Parolek, Daniel G., et al. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners,Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Pipal, Charles. Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission. In-Person Interview, 10 March 2011, and walking tour of Riverside. Purdy, Jeffrey R., AICP. Form-Based Codes New Approach to Zoning. Smart Growth Tactics Issue no. 28: Dec. 2006. Published by the Michigan Association for Planning. http://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf Last accessed Feb. 6, 2011. Rangwala, Kaizer. Hybrid Codes versus Form-Based Codes. New Urban News April/May 2009: 1213. Rangwala, Kaizer. Why Design Guidelines, on their Own, Dont Work, blog post on the New Urban Network website, 22 December 2010. Available online at http://newurbannetwork.com/newsopinion/blogs/kaizer-rangwala/13778/why-design-guidelines-their-own-don%E2%80%99twork. Retrieved 5 June 2011. Rush, Kathleen. Former Village Manager, Village of Riverside. Phone Interview, 22 March 2011. Shoup, Donald C. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: Planners Press, 2004. Sorlien, Sandy. Neighborhood Conservation Code: A Transect-Based Infill Code for Planning and 126

Zoning. Released by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. Available online at http://www.transect.org/codes.html. Accessed 6 June 2011. Steuteville, Robert. New Urban Neighborhoods Make Big Gains. New Urban News, Jan.-Feb. 2004. http://newurbannetwork.com/article/new-urban-neighborhoods-make-big-gains. Accessed 30 January 2011. Steuteville, Robert. Tysons Corner Plan, Miami 21 Honored by APA. 12 January 2011. http://newurbannetwork.com/article/tysons-corner-plan-miami-21-honored-apa-13858. Accessed 6 July 2011. Steuteville, Robert, et al. New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide. Ithaca, NY: New Urban News Publications, 2009. Strungys, Arista. Riverside: A Master Planning Community. Powerpoint Presentation. www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Resources/22470_DavisNikolas.pdf . Accessed 8 February 2011. Strungys, Arista. Project Manager, Camiros, Ltd. Phone Interview, 28 March 2011. Talen, Emily. The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature Vol, 15, No. 2: 171-183. Talen, Emily. Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies Vol. 36, No. 8 (1999): 1361-1379. Talen, Emily. The Social Goals of New Urbanism. Housing Policy Debate Vol. 13, Issue 1 (2002): 165-188. Tsouderos, Trine. New Grayslake Homes Aim to Combat Sprawl, Chicago Tribune, December 15, 2004. Vasquez, Karen. New Planning Tool Adopted. Urban Land. 2003 June, v. 62 no. 6, p. 32. Walters, David. Designing Community: Charrettes, Master Plans, and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007. Wells, Jeremy. Principal City Planner and Preservation Lead, Landmarks Preservation Division, Department of Community Planning & Development, City and County of Denver. Phone Interview, 28 February 2011. White, Josh. As Good as New?, Canadian Architect Nov. 2007. Available online at http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000217108&type=Print%20Archives Accessed 6 June 2011. Willis, Carol. Form Follows Function: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1995. 127

Wyant, Carol. Executive Director, Form-Based Codes Institute. In-Person Interview, 20 November 2010, and subsequent personal communication.

128

Appendix A: The Charter of the New Urbanism

Source: Steuteville, Langdon, et al.

129

130

131

Appendix B: Sample Form-Based Code Micro-Scale Survey Form

Source: Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford

132

133

134

Appendix C: Comparison of Regulating Plans

Sample Regulating Plans from the Heart of Peoria Land Development Code (Frontage-based) and the City of Benicia Downtown Mixed-Use Master Plan (Lot-based)

135

Sample Regulating Plans From the Heart of Peoria Land Development Code Peoria, Illinois Adopted 2007

136

6.2

SHERIDAN TRIANGLE

Heart of Peoria

6-5

Land Development Code

137

6.3

PROSPECT ROAD

Heart of Peoria

6-10

Land Development Code

138

6.4

WEST MAIN

Heart of Peoria

6-15

Land Development Code

139

6.5

WAREHOUSE DISTRICT

Heart of Peoria

6-24

Land Development Code

140

Sample Regulating Plan From the City of Benicia Mixed-Use Master Plan Benicia, California Adopted 2006

141

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Regulating Plan

Zone Key Town Core

K Street

Town Core-Open

Neighborhood Center
Neighborhood General

Neighborhood General - Open Civic/Institutional

I Street

W. 2nd Street

E. 2nd Street

H Street

1st Street

J Street

G Street

F Street

E Street

D Street

C St.

B Street

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

4-3

142

Appendix D: Example Form-Based Standards

Excerpts from Heart of Peoria Land Development Code and City of Benicia Mixed-Use Master Plan and Denver Form-Based Zoning Code

143

Example Form-Based Standards From the Heart of Peoria Land Development Code Peoria, Illinois Adopted 2007

144

A. West Main - Neighborhood Center

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but no

9. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built to the required building b. The building faade shall be built to the required building line within 30
line for at least eighty 80% of the required building line (RBL) length. feet of a block corner. The ground floor faade, within 7 feet of the block corner may be chamfered to form a corner entry. c. These portions of the building faade (the required minimum build-to) may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except as otherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, and balconies. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building envelope standards. b. A contiguous open area equal to at least ten 10% of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, either at grade or at the second story. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. Side Lot Setbacks There are no side lot setbacks except: on a lot where a common lot line is shared with a property located within a single-family residential zoning district, the principal building shall be setback at least 10 feet from the shared lot line. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Garage entries shall have a clear height of no greater than16 feet nor a clear width exceeding 24 feet. c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. d. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatment a. A street wall shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall be located not more than 8 inches behind the required building line. b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lot line not otherwise occupied by a building. c. Where a West Main Center site abuts an R-4 property, a garden wall/street wall, 4 to 6 feet in height, shall be constructed within 1 foot of the R-4 property.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

greater than 5 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan. c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. Parking Structure Height Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (built after 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildings eave or parapet height. Ground Story Height: Commerce Uses a. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to a maximum finished floor elevation of eighteen 18 inches above the sidewalk. b. The ground story shall have at least12 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for a minimum depth of at least 25 feet. c. The maximum story height for the ground story is 20 feet. Ground Story Height: Residential Units a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 17 feet. Upper Story Height a. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. b. At least eighty 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet. Mezzanines Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of the story in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as full stories. Street Wall Height a. A street wall not less than 6 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by the principal building on the lot. b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacent public sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the ground elevation once construction is complete. Other Where a West Main Center site is located within 40 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the West Main Center site shall be 32 feet. This requirement shall supersede the minimum story height requirement.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14. 15.

Heart of Peoria

6-16

Land Development Code

145

B. West Main - Neighborhood Center

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all

5. Ground Story

required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise at least 40%, but not more than ninety 90%, of the facade (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise at least twenty 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). 2. Building Projections a. Balconies and stoops shall not project closer than 5 feet to a common lot line. b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the code, shall encroach beyond the required building line. c. Awnings shall project a minimum of 4 feet and a maximum of within 1 foot of back of curb (where there are no street trees) or 1 foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees.) d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least 10 feet. e. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the Facade and the support posts or columns of the awnings. g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 4 feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts. 3. Doors/Entries At least one functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along the ground story facade of each building and at intervals not greater than 60 linear feet. 4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate no wider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

The ground story shall house commerce or residential uses. See height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use. 6. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house residential or commerce uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. b. No commerce use is permitted above a residential use. c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story. 7. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Commercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories except passenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article 5.6. c. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

Heart of Peoria

6-17

Land Development Code

146

C. West Main Local Commerce

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 18 feet in height, but no

9. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built to the required building
line for at least 70% of the required building line length. feet of a block corner.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

greater than 2 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. Parking Structure Height Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (built after 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildings eave or parapet height. Ground Story Height: Commerce Uses a. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to a maximum finished floor elevation of eighteen 18 inches above the sidewalk. b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for a minimum depth of at least 25 feet. c. The maximum story height for the ground story is 20 feet. Ground Story Height: Residential Units a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 16 feet. Upper Stories Height The maximum floor-to-floor story height for upper stories is 12 feet. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior floor to ceiling height of at least 9 feet. Mezzanines Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of the story in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as a full story. Street Wall and Fence Height A street wall not less than 4 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along any required building line that is not otherwise occupied by a building. Other Where a local commerce site is located within 40 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the local site shall be 32 feet.

b. The building faade shall be built to the required building line within 30
may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except as otherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, front porches and balconies. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building envelope standards. b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 20% of the total buildable area shall be preserved at grade on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. d. Parking/garage is permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot. Side Lot Setbacks There are no required side setbacks except: on a lot where a common lot line is shared with a property located within an existing single family district, the building, parking and storage areas shall be set back at least 10 feet from the shared lot line. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. At grade parking lots are exempt from this setback when applicable street walls are installed per Section 6.6. c. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. d. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code. Frontage Widths The minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individual side lot setbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 100 feet of continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet is required between each such attached structure.

c. These portions of the building faade (the required minimum build-to)

10.

11.

12.

13. 14. 15.

Heart of Peoria

6-18

Land Development Code

147

D. West Main Local Commerce

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all
required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise at least twenty 20%, but not more than 80%, of the facade area (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). c. Windows on the upper story facades shall comprise at least 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). 2. Building Projections a. Balconies and stoops shall not project closer than 5 feet to a common lot line. b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the Code, shall encroach beyond the required building line. c. Awnings shall project a minimum of 4 feet and a maximum of within 1 foot of back of curb (where there are no street trees) or 1 foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees.) d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least 10 feet except as otherwise provided for signs, street lighting and similar appurtenances. e. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the facade and the support posts or columns of the awning. g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 6 feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts 3. Doors/Entries a. Functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along ground story facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet b. Each ground story unit shall have direct access to the street. 4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate no wider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

5. Ground Story

The ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use. 6. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. b. No commerce or industrial use is permitted above a residential use. c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story. 7. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Commercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories except passenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article 5.6. c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Industrial use categories except the heavy industrial and waste-related services, as defined in Article 5.6. d. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

Heart of Peoria

6-19

Land Development Code

148

E. West Main - Local

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but no

8. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built parallel to the required
building line for at least 70% of the required building line length.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

greater than 3 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. Parking Structure Height Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (built after 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildings eave or parapet height. Ground Story Height a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 16 feet. Upper Stories Height a. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for upper stories is 12 feet. b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior floor to ceiling height of at least 9 feet. Mezzanines Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of the story in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as a full story. Street Wall and Fence Height A street wall not less than 4 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along any required building line that is not otherwise occupied by a building. Other Where a local site is located within 40 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the local site shall be 32 feet. This requirement shall supersede the minimum story requirement.

b. The front porch or stoop shall be built to the RBL. c. The building faade or front porch shall be built to the RBL within 20
feet of a block corner.

9. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 20% of the total buildable
building envelope standards. area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback at grade. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, steps, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. d. Parking is permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot. Side Lot Setbacks There are no required side setbacks except: on a lot where a common lot line is shared with a property located within an existing single family district, the building, parking and storage areas shall be set back at least 10 feet from the shared lot line. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. At grade parking lots are exempt from this setback when applicable street walls are installed per Section 6.6. c. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. d. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code. Frontage Widths The minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individual side lot setbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 130 feet of continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet is required between each such attached structure.

10.

11.

12.

13. 14.

Heart of Peoria

6-20

Land Development Code

149

F. West Main - Local

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Stoops and Porches a. Each lot/unit shall include a stoop or a front porch. b. A stoop shall be built at the required building line and be between 4
and 5 feet deep and 6 feet wide (plus steps).

6. Ground Story

c. A Front Porch shall be built at the required building line and be

2.

3.

4.

5.

between 8 and 10 feet deep, with a width not less than 50% of the required building line. (The facade will sit behind the RBL, as determined by the required front porch depth.) Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on all required building line facades shall comprise at least 30%, but no more than sixty 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). Building Projections No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, and steps, as specified by the code, shall encroach beyond the required building line. Doors/Entries a. Functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along ground story facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet. b. Each ground/first floor residential unit shall have direct access to the street. c. Each lot shall have a functioning entry door on the required building line faade. Fences/Garden Walls A fence or garden wall, 20 to 40 inches in height, is permitted along the front and the common lot lines of the dooryard. A privacy fence, 6 to 9 feet in height, may be placed along any unbuilt rear lot lines and common lot lines.

7. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house residential and home office uses. b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the
roof is configured as an attic story.

The ground story shall house residential and home office uses.

8. Accessory Unit a. One English basement unit or one accessory unit is permitted per

lot. Conversion of primary structure single-family units for multifamily use is prohibited. b. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses are permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot. 9. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. b. Home Office: For the purposes of the Form Districts, a home office shall be considered to be a home occupation. 5.4.9. c. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

Heart of Peoria

6-21

Land Development Code

150

G. West Main R-4

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but no

5. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built parallel to the required

greater than 3 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan. c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. 2. Ground Story Height a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 16 feet. 3. Upper Story Height a. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet. 4. Fence Height a. A front yard fence is allowed to a maximum height of 40 inches. b. A privacy fence not more than 8 feet in height is allowed along any common lot line that is behind the RBL/building faade and is not otherwise occupied by a building.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

building line for at least 60% of the required building line (RBL) length. b. The front porch shall be built to the RBL. c. Within 20 feet of a block corner, the building faade shall be 8 to 10 feet behind the RBL. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building envelope standards. b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 25% of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, steps, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. Side Lot Setbacks The minimum side lot setback is 15 feet total, with a minimum of 5 feet per side, or as otherwise designated on the regulating plan. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Private garage entries shall not be located on the RBL/facade. c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. d. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys There is a 2 foot required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 14 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code.

Heart of Peoria

6-22

Land Development Code

151

H. West Main R-4

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 15 linear feet are prohibited on all

5. Ground Story

The ground story shall house residential or home office uses.

required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on ground story facades shall comprise at least 20%, but not more than 70%, of the facade area (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). 2. Building Projections a. Each lot shall include a front porch at the RBL, between 8 and 10 feet deep with a width not less than 1/3 of the faade width. b. No part of any building, except the front porch roof (overhanging eaves) and steps may encroach beyond the required building line. 3. Doors/Entries At least one functioning entry door shall be provided along ground story faade of each building. 4. Street Walls a. There is no street wall requirement. b. A privacy fence may be constructed along a common lot line behind the RBL.

6. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house residential or home office uses. b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof 7. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the b. Conversion of primary structure single-family units for multiple-family 8. Accessory Uses a. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) are permitted
in the buildable area at the rear of the lot. Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. use is prohibited. is configured as an attic story.

c. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

(Ordinance No. 16,222, 1, 12-11-07; Ordinance No. 16,302, 1, 07-08-08; Ordinance No. 16,396, 1, 02-24-09; Ordinance No. 16,521, 1, 01-12-10)

Heart of Peoria

6-23

Land Development Code

152

A. Warehouse District General

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but no

8. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built to the required building
line for at least 80% of the required building line (RBL) length. 30 feet of a block corner.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

greater than 8 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan. c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. Parking Structure Height Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (built after 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildings eave or parapet height. Ground Story Height: Commerce/Industry Uses a. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for a depth of at least 25 feet. c. The maimum story height for the ground story is 25 feet. Ground Story Height: Residential Units a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 22 feet. Upper Story Height a. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 20 feet. b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet. Mezzanines Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of the story in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as full stories. Street Wall Height a. A street wall not less than 6 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by the principal building on the lot. b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacent public sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the ground elevation once construction is complete.

b. The building faade shall be built to the required building line within c. These portions of the building faade (the required minimum build
to) may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except as otherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, and balconies. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building envelope standards. b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 5% of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, either at grade or at the second or third story. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. Side Lot Setbacks There are no required side lot setbacks. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Garage Entries shall have a clear height of no greater than 16 feet nor a clear width exceeding 24 feet. c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. d. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatment a. A street wall shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall be located no more 8 inches behind the required building line. b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lot line not otherwise occupied by a building.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13. 14.

Heart of Peoria

6-25

Land Development Code

153

B. Warehouse District General

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all

5. Ground Story

required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise at least 20%, but not more than 90%, of the facade area (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise at least 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). 2. Building Projections a. Balconies and stoops shall not project closer than 5 feet to a common lot line. b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the code, shall encroach beyond the required building line. c. Awnings shall project a minimum of 4 feet and a maximum of within 1 foot of back of curb (where there are no street trees) or 1 foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees.) d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least 10 feet except as otherwise provided for signs, street lighting and similar appurtenances. e. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the facade and the support posts or columns of the awning. g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 6 feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts 3. Doors/Entries a. Functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along ground story facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet b. Each ground story residential unit shall have direct access to the street-space. 4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate no wider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

The ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use. 6. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story. 7. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Commercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories except passenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article 5.6. c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Industrial use categories except the heavy industrial and wasterelated services, as defined in Article 5.6. d. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

Heart of Peoria

6-26

Land Development Code

154

C. Warehouse District - Local

HEIGHT

SITING

1. Building Height a. The height of the principal building is measured in stories. b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but no

9. Street Facade a. On each lot the building faade shall be built to the required building
line for at least 75% of the required building line (RBL) length.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

greater than 5 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on the regulating plan. c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height. Parking Structure Height Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (built after 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the building eave or parapet height. Ground Story Height: Commerce/Industry Uses a. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to a maximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk. b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height (floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for a depth of at least 25 feet. c. The maximum story height for the ground story is 20 feet. Ground Story Height: Residential Units a. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required building line. b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 17 feet. Upper Story Height a. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the ground story is 12 feet. b. At least eighty 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet. Mezzanines Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of the story in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as full stories. Street Wall Height a. A street wall not less than 6 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in height shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by the principal building on the lot. b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacent public sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the ground elevation once construction is complete. Other Where a warehouse local site is located within 40 feet of an existing single-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for that portion of the warehouse local site shall be 32 feet. This requirement shall supersede the minimum story height requirement.

b. The building faade shall be built to the required building line within

10.

11. 12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

30 feet of a block corner. (The ground floor faade, within 7 feet of the block corner may be chamfered to form a corner entry.) c. These portions of the building faade (the required minimum build to) may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except as otherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, and balconies. Buildable Area a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building envelope standards. b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 15% of the total buildable area shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area may be located anywhere behind the parking setback, either at grade or at the second story. c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area. Side Lot Setbacks There are no required side lot setbacks. Garage and Parking a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan. b. Garage entries shall have a clear height of no greater than 16 feet nor a clear width exceeding 24 feet. c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind the parking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. At grade parking lots are exempt from this setback when applicable street walls are installed per Section 6.6. d. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking. e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated required building line. Alleys a. There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line. Corner Lots a. Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required building line length unless otherwise specified in this code. Frontage Widths The minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individual side lot setbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 130 feet of continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet is required between each such attached structure. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatment a. A street wall shall be required along any required building line frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall be located no more than 8 inches behind the required building line. b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lot line not otherwise occupied by a building.
Land Development Code

Heart of Peoria

6-27

155

6.0 Form Districts

6.5 Warehouse District

D. Warehouse District - Local

ELEMENTS

USE

1. Windows and Doors a. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all

5. Ground Story

required building lines. b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise at least twenty 20%, but not more than 80%, of the facade area (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise at least 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels). 2. Building Projections a. Balconies and stoops shall not project closer than 5 feet to a common lot line. b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by the Code, shall encroach beyond the required building line. c. Awnings shall project a minimum of 4 feet and a maximum of within 1 foot of back of curb (where there are no street trees) or 1 foot into the tree lawn (where there are street trees.) d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shall maintain a clear height of at least 10 feet except as otherwise provided for signs, street lighting and similar appurtenances. e. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided that they: f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the facade and the support posts or columns of the awning. g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 6 feet wide running adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts 3. Doors/Entries a. Functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along ground story facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet b. Each ground story unit shall have direct access to the street. 4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate no wider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

The ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique to each use. 6. Upper Stories a. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of the ground story use. b. No commerce or industrial use is permitted above a residential use. c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story. 7. Permitted Uses a. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6. b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Commercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories except passenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article 5.6. c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Industrial use categories except waste-related services and animal processing, as defined in Article 5.6. d. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

(Ordinance No. 16,222, 1, 12-11-07; Ordinance No. 16,521, 1, 01-12-10)

Heart of Peoria

6-28

Land Development Code

156

Example Form-Based Standards From the City of Benicia Mixed-Use Master Plan Benicia, California Adopted 2006

157

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Zone Descriptions

Town Core (TC): The primary intent of this zone is to enhance the vibrant, pedestrian-oriented character of First Street. The physical form and uses are regulated to reflect the urban character of the historic shopfront buildings. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone primarily refers to vertical mixed use where retail or commercial are on the ground floor and residential or commercial are above. Town Core-Open (TC-O): The primary intent of this zone is to regulate the physical form of shopfront buildings along the side streets between First Street and Second Street in order to provide an appropriate transition from First Street into the residential neighborhoods. The physical form of a shopfront building is regulated while allowing flexibility in use. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone is defined by the flexibility and compatibility in use, allowing retail, commercial, or residential live/work uses in a shopfront form. Neighborhood Center (NC): The primary intent of this zone is to reinforce and enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of locally-serving retail and commercial uses along the existing commercial centers on East and West Second Streets. The physical form varies to reflect the urban character of the historic shopfront buildings, the residential character of adjacent residential buildings, or the civic character of existing buildings, such as old churches. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone refers to vertical and horizontal mixed use where retail and commercial are permitted on the ground floor at the street edge and residential or commercial uses are permitted above or behind in ancillary buildings. All of this is at a scale and form that is appropriate to its neighborhood context adjacent to residential uses and forms. Neighborhood General (NG): The primary intent of this zone is to protect the integrity and quality of the downtown residential neighborhoods. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Appropriately-scaled ancillary buildings are allowed that can accommodate residential, home-office, or workshop uses. Neighborhood General-Open (NG-O): The primary intent of this zone is to ensure a residential physical form to relate to adjacent residential buildings along the side streets between First Street and Second Street in order to provide an appropriate transition from First Street into the residential neighborhoods. The physical form of a residential building is regulated while allowing flexibility in use. This zone is applied to buildings with an existing residential form that has been compromised by on-site or adjacent development making pure residential use inappropriate. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Commercial or residential uses are allowed in this area in a residential form both in the main buildings as well as in ancillary buildings.

4-4

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

158

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core (TC) Standards

Town Core (TC): The primary intent of this zone is to enhance the vibrant, pedestrian-oriented character of First Street. The physical form and uses are regulated to reflect the urban character of the historic shopfront buildings. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone primarily refers to vertical mixed use where retail or commercial are on the ground floor and residential or commercial are above. How primary street is defined within this zone: The primary street is always First Street.
Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

Illustrative examples of buildings in a Town Core area

4-5

Si

de

St et

re re

et St

Pr im ar y

159

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core (TC) Standards

D
BTL, Property Line

N K

G C

H B

Side Street

M L

A
BTL, Property Line Sidewalk Primary Street

F E

Property Line

Street

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Building Placement Build-to Line (Distance from Property Line) Front Side Street Side Rear Adjacent to NG Zone Adjacent to any other Zone Building Form Primary Street Faade built to BTL 80% min.* Side Street Faade built to BTL Lot Width Lot Depth Notes All floors must have a primary ground-floor entrance that faces the primary or side street. Loading docks, overhead doors, and other service entries are prohibited on street-facing faades. Any building over 50' wide must be broken down to read as a series of buildings no wider than 50' each.
4-6 Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.
E F G H

Setback Line Building Area Use Ground Floor

A B

Service, Retail, or Recreation, Education & Public Assembly*

I J

0' 0' 0' 8' 5'

Setback (Distance from Property Line)

C

Upper Floor(s)

Residential or Service*

*See Table 4.1 for specific uses. Height Building Min. Building Max. Ancillary Building Max. Finish Ground Floor Level First Floor Ceiling Height 22' * 2.5 stories and 35' * 2 stories and 25' * 6" max. above sidewalk 12' min. clear
N K K L M

D D

30% min.* 125' max. 100' max.

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear. *All heights measured to eaves or base of parapet. Notes Mansard roof forms are not allowed.

*Street faades must be built to BTL along first 30' from every corner.

Any section along the BTL not defined by a building must be defined by a 2'6" to 4'6" high fence or stucco or masonry wall.

160

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core (TC) Standards

R S T W

Side Street

O
Sidewalk Primary Street BTL, Property Line Sidewalk Primary Street

Key Property Line Parking Area Parking Location (Distance from Property Line) Front Setback Side Setback Side Street Setback Rear Setback Required Spaces Ground Floor Uses <3,000 sf Uses >3,000 sf Upper Floors Residential uses Other uses Notes Parking Drive Width primary street. Parking may be provided off-site within 1,300' or as shared parking. Bicycle parking must be provided and in a secure environment. Parking drives are highly discouraged along First Street and only permitted if there is no other option for access to parking areas.
Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Encroachments Location

O P Q R

Setback Line Encroachment Area

30' 0' 5' 5'

Front Side Street Rear Notes

12' max. 8' max. 4' max.

Canopies, Awnings, and Balconies may encroach over the BTL on the street sides, as shown in the shaded areas. Balconies No off-street parking required 1 space/500 sf 1 space/unit; .5 space/studio 1 space/1,000 sf Allowed Frontage Types (see page 4-30) 15' max.
S

may encroach into the setback on the rear, as shown in the shaded areas. Upper-story galleries facing the street must not be used to meet primary circulation requirements.

Gallery Clearance 1' min. back from curb line 9' min. clear, 2 stories max. 10' max. 15' min., not to exceed width 20' min., 50% of lot width max.
4-7

On corner lots, parking drive shall not be located on

T

Height Awning Depth Forecourt Depth Width

161

Side Street

BTL, Property Line

U V W

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core (TC) Standards

Table 4.1: Town Core (TC) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements

Land Use Type

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Land Use Type1 Residential Home occupation < 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees > 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees > 300 sf and 3 or more employees Mixed use project residential component Dwelling: Multi-Family-Rowhouse Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex Ancillary Building Residential Care, 7 or more clients Residential Care, 6 or fewer clients Retail Artisan Shop Bar, tavern, night club, except with any of the following features Operating between 9 pm and 7 am General retail, except with any of the following features: Alcoholic beverage sales Floor area over 8000 sf On-site production of items sold Operating between 9 pm and 7 am

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Recreation, Education & Public Assembly Commercial recreation facility: Indoor < 1500 sf > 1500 sf Health/fitness facility < 1500 sf > 1500 sf Library, museum Meeting facility, public or private Park, playground School, public or private Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. < 1500 sf Theater, cinema, or performing arts < 5000 sf > 5000 sf P P P UP MUP UP P MUP MUP MUP MUP UP

P P NA P P P P P P P P P P UP P UP MUP MUP MUP P P

Key P MUP UP NA Permitted Use Minor Use Permit Required - staff review only Use Permit Required Not an allowed use

Neighborhood market < 10,000 sf Restaurant, caf, coffee shop

End Notes
1 A definition of each listed use type is 2 Allowed

in the Glossary.

only on upper floors or behind ground floor use.

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

4-8

162

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Land Use Type1

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Services: Business, Financial, Professional ATM or bank Business support service Medical services: Doctor Office Medical services: Extended Care Office: Business, service Office: Professional, administrative Services: General Financial Services Bed & breakfast 4 guest rooms or less Greater than 4 guest rooms Day care center: Child or adult Day care center: Large family Day care center: Small family Lodging Personal services Parking facility, public or commercial Wireless telecommunications facility P P P P P MUP P UP MUP P P P P P P P

Transportation, Communications, Infrastructure

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

4-9

163

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core-Open (TC-O) Standards

Pa r

ki

ng

Dr

iv

Town Core-Open (TC-O): The primary intent of this zone is to regulate the physical form of shopfront buildings along the side streets between First Street and Second Street in order to provide an appropriate transition from First Street into the residential neighborhoods. The physical form of a shopfront building is regulated while allowing flexibility in use. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone is defined by the flexibility and compatibility in use, allowing retail, commercial, or residential live/work uses in a shopfront form.
Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

St re et

Illustrative examples of buildings in a Town Core-Open Area

4-11

164

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core-Open (TC-O) Standards

C H L

F B G K J

A
BTL, Property Line Sidewalk Street

D
Property Line Street

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Building Placement Build-to Line (Distance from Property Line) Front Side Rear Adjacent to NG Zone Adjacent to any other Zone Building Form Street Faade built to BTL Lot Width Lot Depth Notes All floors must have a primary ground-floor entrance which faces the street. Loading docks, overhead doors, and other service entries are prohibited on street faades. Any building over 50' wide must be broken down to read as a series of buildings no wider than 50' each. 80% min.* 75' max. 150' max.
D E F

Setback Line Building Area Use Ground Floor

A

Service, Retail, or Recreation, Education & Public Assembly*

G H

0' 3' 8' 5'

Setback (Distance from Property Line)

B

Upper Floor(s)

Residential or Service*

*See Table 4.2 for specific uses.

C C

Height Building Min. Building Max. Ancillary Building Max. Finish Ground Floor Level First Floor Ceiling Height 16' * 2 stories and 25' * 2 stories and 25' * 12" max. above sidewalk 12' min. clear
J K L I I

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear *All heights measured to eaves or base of parapet. Notes Mansard roof forms are not allowed.

Any section along the BTL not defined by a building must be defined by a 2'6" to 4'6" high fence or stucco or masonry wall.

4-12

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

165

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core-Open (TC-O) Standards

M
Sidewalk Street

BTL, Property Line

Sidewalk Street

Key Property Line Parking Area Parking Location (Distance from Property Line) Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Required Spaces Ground Floor Uses < 3,000 sf Uses > 3,000 sf Upper Floor(s) Residential uses Other uses Notes Parking Drive Width parking . Bicycle parking must be provided and in a secure environment. 50% of the on-street parking spaces adjacent to lot can count toward parking requirements. 15' max.
P

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Encroachments Location

M N O

Setback Line Encroachment Area

20' 0' 5'

Front Rear Notes

12' max. 4' max.

Q R

Canopies, Awnings, and Balconies may encroach over the BTL on the street sides, as shown in the shaded areas. Balconies No off-street parking required 1 space/500 sf 1 space/unit; .5 space/studio 1 space/1,000 sf Allowed Frontage Types (see page 4-30) Gallery Clearance Height Awning Depth Forecourt Depth Width 15' min., not to exceed width 20' min., 50% of lot width max.
4-13

may encroach into the setback on the rear, as shown in the shaded areas. Upper story galleries facing the street must not be used to meet primary circulation requirements.

Parking may be provided off-site within 1,300' or as shared

1' min. back from curb line 9' min. clear, 2 stories max. 10' max.

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

166

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Town Core-Open (TC-O) Standards

Table 4.2: Town Core-Open (TC-O) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements

Land Use Type1

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Land Use Type1 Retail Artisan Shop

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Recreation, Education & Public Assembly Commercial recreation facility: Indoor < 1500 sf Library, museum Meeting facility, public or private Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. < 1500 sf Residential Home occupation < 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees > 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees Live/work unit Dwelling: Multi-Family-Rowhouse Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex Ancillary Building Residential Care, 7 or more clients Residential Care, 6 or fewer clients P P P P P P P P UP MUP P MUP P MUP

P UP

Bar, tavern, night club, except with any of the following

Operating between 9 pm and 7 am NA General retail, except with any of the following features: Alcoholic beverage sales Floor area over 8000 sf On-site production of items sold Operating between 9 pm and 7 am Neighborhood market <10,000 sf Restaurant, caf, coffee shop ATM or Bank Business support service Medical services: Clinic, urgent care Medical services: Doctor office Medical services: Extended Care Office: Business, service Office: Professional, administrative Services: General Financial Services P P P MUP P MUP UP NA MUP NA P MUP MUP P MUP P MUP P P P

Mixed use project residential component P

Services: Business, Financial, Professional

Key P MUP UP NA Permitted Use Minor Use Permit Required - staff review only Use Permit Required Use Not Allowed

Bed & Breakfast 4 guest rooms or less Greater than 4 guest rooms Lodging Personal services Wireless telecommunications facility

End Notes A definition of each listed use type is in the Glossary. Allowed only on upper floors or behind ground floor use. Allowed only in Ancillary buildings
4-14

Transportation, Communications, Infrastructure

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

167

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Neighborhood Center (NC) Standards

Neighborhood Center (NC): The primary intent of this zone is to reinforce and enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of locallyserving retail and commercial uses along the existing commercial centers on East and West Second Streets. The physical form varies to reflect the urban character of the historic shopfront buildings, the residential character of adjacent residential buildings, or the civic character of existing buildings, such as old churches. How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone refers to vertical and horizontal mixed use where retail and commercial are permitted on the ground floor at the street edge and residential or commercial uses are permitted above or behind in ancillary buildings. All of this is at a scale and form that is appropriate to its neighborhood context adjacent to residential uses and forms. How primary street is defined within this zone: The primary street is always E. or W. Second Street.
Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

Illustrative examples of buildings in a Neighborhood Center area

4-15

Si

de

St

re

et

Pr im ar y St re et

168

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Neighborhood Center (NC) Standards

D N

J G E F C H
Side Street

A
Sidewalk Primary Street

I L

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Building Placement Setback (Distance from Property Line) Front Side Street Side Rear Adjacent to NG or Resid. Zone Under two stories 2 stories or more Adjacent to any other Zone Building Form Lot Width Lot Depth Building Width Building Depth Distance between buildings on same lot Notes All floors must have a primary ground-floor entrance which faces the primary or side street. Loading docks, overhead doors, and other service entries are prohibited on street-facing faades.
4-16

Setback Line Building Area Use Ground Floor

A B C
Sidewalk Property Line

Residential, Service, Retail, or Recreation, Education & Public Assembly*

I J

0' min., 12' max. 0' min., 8' max. 4'

Upper Floor(s)

Residential or Service*

*See Table 4.3 for specific uses. 8' 12' 5' 75' max. 150' max. 50' max. 75' max. 12' min.
D D D

Height Building Min. Building Max. Ancillary Building Max. Finish Ground Floor Level Residential Commercial First Floor Ceiling Height 18" min. 0" min. 10' min. clear
L L M N

16' * 2.5 stories and 30' * 2 stories and 25' *

K K

E F G H

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear *All heights measured to eaves or base of parapet. Notes Mansard roof forms are not allowed.

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

169

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Neighborhood Center (NC) Standards

R W S T V
Side Street Side Street

O
Sidewalk Primary Street Sidewalk Primary Street

Key Property Line Parking Area Parking Location (Distance from Property Line) Front Setback Side Setback Side Street Setback Rear Setback Required Spaces Ground Floor Residential Use Uses < 3,000 sf Uses > 3,000 sf Upper Floor(s) Residential uses Other uses Notes Parking Drive Width primary street. Parking may be provided off-site within 1,300' or as shared parking . Bicycle parking must be provided and in a secure environment. 50% of the on-street parking spaces adjacent to lot can count toward parking requirements.
Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

Key Property Line Build-to Line (BTL) Encroachments Location

O P Q R

Setback Line Encroachment Area

20' 0' 5' 5'

Front Side Street Rear Notes

12' max. 8' max. 4' max.

U V W

Porches, Commercial Storefronts, Balconies, and Bay Windows may encroach over the BTL on the street sides, as shown 1 space/unit, .5 spaces/studio No off-street parking required 1 space/500 sf Allowed Frontage Types (see page 4-30) 1 space/unit; .5 space/studio 1 space/1,000 sf 15' max.
S

in the shaded areas. Balconies may encroach into the setback on the rear, as shown in the shaded areas.

Awning Depth Stoop Depth Forecourt Depth Width Porch Depth Height 8' min. 2 stories max.
4-17

10' max. 4' min., 6' max. 20' min., not to exceed width 20' min., 50% of lot width max.

On corner lots, parking drive shall not be located on

T

170

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Neighborhood Center (NC) Standards

Table 4.3: Neighborhood Center (NC) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements

Land Use Type1

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Land Use Type1 Residential Dwelling: Single family

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Recreation, Education & Public Assembly Commercial recreation facility: Indoor < 1500 sf Library, museum Meeting facility, public or private Park, playground School, public or private Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc. < 1500 sf > 1500 sf Theater, cinema, or performing arts < 5000 sf MUP P MUP MUP MUP P P MUP

P P P P P MUP P P P P UP MUP P UP UP P UP MUP UP P P

Home occupation < 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees > 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees > 300 sf and 3 or more employees Live/work unit Dwelling: Multi-Family-Rowhouse Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex Ancillary Building Residential Care, 7 or more clients Residential Care, 6 or fewer clients Retail Artisan Shop Bar, tavern, night club, except with any of the following features Operating between 9 pm and 7 am General retail, except with any of the following features: Alcoholic beverage sales On-site production of items sold Operating between 9pm and 7am

Mixed use project residential component P

Key P MUP UP Permitted Use Minor Use Permit Required - staff review only Use Permit Required

Neighborhood market < 10,000 sf Restaurant, caf, coffee shop

End Notes
1 A definition of each listed use type is in the Glossary. 2 Allowed

only on second floors or behind ground floor use.

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

4-18

171

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Draft: 12.22.06

Land Use Type1

Permit Required

Specific Use Regulations

Services: Business, Financial, Professional ATM or Bank Business support service Medical services: Clinic, urgent care Medical services: Doctor office Medical services: Extended Care Office: Business, service Office: Professional, administrative Services: General Financial Services Bed & Breakfast 4 guest rooms or less Greater than 4 guest rooms Day care center: Child or adult Day care center: Large family Day care center: Small family Personal services Wireless telecommunications facility P MUP MUP UP P P MUP P P P MUP P MUP P P

Transportation, Communications, Infrastructure

Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan Opticos Design, Inc.

4-19

172

Example Form-Based Standards From the Denver Form-Based Zoning Code Denver, Colorado Adopted 2010

173

ARTICLE 5. URBAN (U-) NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT

174

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.1 Neighborhood Context Description

DIVISION 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT DESCRIPTION

The Urban Neighborhood Context is primarily characterized by single-unit and two-unit residential uses. Smallscale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas. Single-unit residential structures are typically Urban House forms. Multi-unit building forms are typically Row House forms embedded with other residential building forms. Commercial buildings are typically Shop front and General forms that may contain a mixture of uses within the same building. Single- and two-unit residential uses are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. Multi-unit residential uses are located along local streets, residential and mixed use arterials, and main streets. Commercial uses are primarily located along mixeduse arterial or main streets but may be located at or between intersections of local streets.

SECTION 5.1.1

GENERAL CHARACTER

The Urban Neighborhood Context consists of a regular pattern of block shapes surrounded by an orthogonal street grid. Orthogonal streets provide a regular pattern of pedestrian and vehicular connections through this context and there is a consistent presence of alleys. Block sizes and shapes are consistent and primarily include detached sidewalks (though attached sidewalks are also found), tree lawns where provided for by detached sidewalks, street and surface parking, and landscaping in the front setback.

SECTION 5.1.2

STREET, BLOCK AND ACCESS PATTERNS

Residential buildings typically have consistent, moderate front setbacks, shallow side setbacks and consistent orientation. Commercial buildings typically have consistent orientation and shallow front setbacks with parking at the rear and/or side of the building.

SECTION 5.1.3

BUILDING PLACEMENT AND LOCATION

The Urban Neighborhood Context is characterized by low scale buildings except for some mid- rise commercial and mixed use structures, particularly at nodes or along arterial streets.

SECTION 5.1.4 SECTION 5.1.5

BUILDING HEIGHT MOBILITY

There is a balance of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle reliance with greater access to the multi-modal transportation system.

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.1-1

175

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

5.3.3.4 District Specific Standards

A. Urban House
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

A C

Pri m

ary

Str e

et

PR

Set

IM AR YS

ba

ck

S IDE

TR

EE

ne Zo of h % 35 ept ar D Re Lot

TR

EE

ne Zo of % th 65 ep nt D Fro Lot

ALLEY J I I J I

SIDE STREET

5.3-4 |

SIDE STREET G H F E PRIMARY STREET

H H

F E E

PR

IM AR YS

E SID

ST

RE

ET

TR

EE

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

176

URBAN HOUSE
HEIGHT
Stories, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max)
A/B Feet, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max)

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

U-SU-A U-SU-A1 U-SU-A2 2.5/1 30/17

U-SU-B U-SU-B1 U-SU-B2 2.5/1 30/17

U-SU-C U-SU-C1 U-SU-C2 2.5/1 30/17

U-SU-E U-SU-H U-TU-B U-SU-E1 U-SU-H1 U-TU-B2 U-TU-C 2.5/1 3/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 30/17 30/17 30/17 30/17

U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 2.5/1 30/17

Feet, front 65% of zone lot depth, allowable height increase Feet, rear 35% of zone lot depth, allowable height increase Bulk Plane Vertical Height at Side Interior and Side C/D Street zone lot line in front 65% / rear 35% of Zone Lot Depth Bulk Plane Slope from Side Interior and Side Street zone lot line

1 for every 5 increase in lot width over 50 up to a maximum height of 35 1 for every 3 increase in side setback up to a maximum height of 19 17/10 45 U-SU-A, A1, A2 U-TU-B, B2 3,000 ft2 25 1/1 17/10 45 U-SUB, B1, B2 U-TU-C 4,500 ft2 35 1/1 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45

SITING
ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min) Zone Lot Width (min) Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/ max)

U-SUC, C1, C2 5,500 ft2 50 1/1

U-SUE, E1

U-SUH, H1

U-TUB, B2

U-TU-C

U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 3,000 ft2 25 1/2

7,000 ft2 10,000 ft2 4,500 ft2 5,500 ft2 50 75 35 50 1/1 1/1 1/2 1/2

All U-SU, TU, RH Districts SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Primary Street, block sensitive setback required Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior (min) Rear, alley/no alley (min) Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all accessory structures (max) PARKING BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street Setback (max) Vehicle Access ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Detached Accessory Structures Allowed 30 or Less yes 20 3 3 12/20 50% 31 to 40 yes 20 5 3 min one side/10 min combined 12/20 37.5% 41 to 74 yes 20 5 5 12/20 37.5% 75 or Greater yes 20 7.5 10 12/20 37.5%

F F G H I

2 Spaces 2 Spaces and 320 ft2 33% 33% and 320 ft2 From alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present. See Sec. 5.3.7.6 see Sec. 5.3.4 U-SU-A U-SU-A1 U-SU-A2 U-SU-B U-SU-B1 U-SU-B2 U-SU-C U-SU-C1 U-SU-C2

DESIGN ELEMENTS
BUILDING CONFIGURATION Attached Garage Allowed Primary Street Facing Attached Garage Door Width in first 50% of lot depth (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

U-SU-E U-SU-H U-TU-B U-SU-E1 U-SU-H1 U-TU-B2 U-TU-C

U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A

(1) Shall not project forward of any part of a Primary Street facing facade of a primary structure (2) May follow the Detached Garage building form Side Street, Side Interior and Rear setbacks 35% of the entire width of the Primary Street facing facade of the primary structure or 16, whichever is greater Entry Feature

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-5

177

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

B. Duplex
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

AL

LEY

A C
Pri m ary

Str e

et

PR

Set

IM AR YS

ba

ck

S IDE

TR

EE

T
e

ne Zo of % pth 35 e ar D Re Lot

TR

EE

n Zo of 5% pth 6 e nt D Fro Lot

ALLEY J I SIDE STREET SIDE STREET J J

H H

F E PRIMARY STREET
E

F
E

AL

LEY

PR

IM AR YS

S IDE

TR

EET

TR

EET

5.3-6 |

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

178

DUPLEX
HEIGHT
Stories, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max) A/B Feet, front 65% / rear 35% of lot depth (max) Feet, front 65% of zone lot depth, allowable height increase Feet, rear 35% of zone lot depth, allowable height increase Bulk Plane Vertical Height at Side interior and Side C/D street zone lot line in front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth Bulk Plane Slope from Side interior and Side Street zone lot line U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2* 2.5/1 2.5/1 30/17 30/17 U-SU-C2* 2.5/1 30/17

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

U-TU-B U-TU-B2 2.5/1 30/17

U-TU-C 2.5/1 30/17

U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 2.5/1 30/17

1 for every 5 increase in lot width over 50 up to a maximum height of 35 1 for every 3 increase in side setback up to a maximum height of 19 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 U-TU-B U-TU-B2 4,500 ft2 35 2/2 17/10 45 17/10 45 U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 4,500 ft2 35 2/2

ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min) Zone Lot Width (min) Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/ max)

SITING

U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2* 3,000 ft2 25 2/2 4,500 ft2 35 2/2

U-SU-C2* 5,500 ft2 50 2/2

U-TU-C 5,500 ft2 50 2/2

All U-SU, TU, RH Districts SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Primary Street, block sensitive setback required Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior (min) Rear, alley/no alley (min) Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all accessory structures (max) PARKING BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street Setback (max) Vehicle Access ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Detached Accessory Structures Allowed 30 or Less yes 20 3 3 12/20 50% 31 to 40 yes 20 5 3 min one side/10 min combined 12/20 37.5% 41 to 74 yes 20 5 5 12/20 37.5% 75 or Greater yes 20 5 10 12/20 37.5%

F F G H I

50%

50%

33%

50%

From alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present. See Section 5.3.7.6 See Sec. 5.3.4 U-TU-B U-TU-B2 U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES
BUILDING CONFIGURATION Attached Garage Allowed Primary Street Facing Attached Garage Door Width in first 50% of lot depth (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION K Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2*

U-SU-C2*

U-TU-C

(1) Shall not project forward of any part of a Primary Street facing facade of a primary structure (2) May follow the Detached Garage building form standards Side Street, Side Interior and Rear setbacks 35% of the entire width of the Primary Street facing facade of the dwelling primary structure or 16, whichever is greater Entry Feature

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions *Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one of the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the functional street classifications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-7

179

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

C. Tandem House
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

A C

Pri m

ary

Str e

et

PR

Set

IM AR YS

ba

ck

S IDE

TR

EE

n Zo of 5% epth 3 ar D Re Lot e

TR

EE

n Zo of 5% pth 6 e nt D Fro Lot

ALLEY K J G L G F H H F H H F SIDE STREET I I L K J I I L G K J G SIDE STREET

E PRIMARY STREET

O O

PR

IM AR YS

TR

EE

S IDE

TR

EE

5.3-8 |

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

180

TANDEM HOUSE
HEIGHT
Stories (max)
A/B Feet, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max)

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

Feet, front 65% of lot depth, allowable height increase Bulk Plane Vertical Height at Side interior and Side street zone lot line C/D in front 65% of lot / rear 35% of zone lot depth Bulk Plane Slope from Side interior and Side Street zone lot line

U-TU-B U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2* U-SU-C2* U-TU-B2 U-TU-C 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 30/24 30/24 30/24 30/24 30/24 30/24 1 for every 5 increase in lot width over 50 up to a maximum height of 35 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 17/10 45 U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 4,500 ft2 35 1/1

SITING
ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min) Zone Lot Width (min) Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max)

U-TU-B U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2* U-SU-C2* U-TU-B2 3,000 ft2 25 1/1 4,500 ft2 35 1/1 5,500 ft2 50 1/1 4,500 ft2 35 1/1

U-TU-C 5,500 ft2 50 1/1

F F G H I J K L

SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Primary Street, block sensitive setback required Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior, for Primary Structure #1 (min one side/min combined) Side Interior, for Primary Structure #2 (min one side/min combined)** Rear, for Primary Structure #1, as a % of lot depth (min) Rear, for Primary Structure #2 (min) Required Separation Between Primary Structures (min) Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all accessory structures (max) PARKING BY ZONE LOT WIDTH Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street Setback (max) Vehicle Access ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Detached Accessory Structures Allowed

30 or Less yes 20 3 3/6 3/6 50% 5 6 50%

All U-SU, TU, RH Districts 31 to 40 41 to 74 yes yes 20 20 5 5 5/10 5/10 5/10 5/10 50% 50% 5 5 6 6 37.5% 37.5%

75 or Greater yes 20 5 5/15 5/15 50% 5 6 37.5%

50% 50% 50% 50% From alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present See Section 5.3.7.6 See Sec. 5.3.4 U-TU-B U-SU-A2* U-SU-B2* U-SU-C2* U-TU-B2 36 36 36 36 U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 36

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES
BUILDING CONFIGURATION
M N

U-TU-C 36

Overall Structure Width (max) Overall Structure Length (max) Attached Garage Allowed Primary Street Facing Attached Garage Door Width in first 50% of lot depth (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION

42 42 42 42 42 42 (1) Shall not project forward of any part of a Primary Street facing facade of a primary structure (2) May follow the Detached Garage building form Side Street, Side Interior and Rear setbacks 35% of the entire width of the Primary Street facing facade of the primary structure or 16, whichever is greater Primary Structure #1: Entry Feature Primary Structure #2: No Requirement

Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions *Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one of the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the functional street classifications adopted by the Public Works Department. **Must be offset to be visible from the street if to the rear of Primary Structure #1 (side setbacks may be reversed from Primary Structure #1)

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-9

181

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

D. Garden Court
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

B A

ALLEY G G G

SIDE STREET

5.3-10 |

SIDE STREET D E E EE D C C C PRIMARY STREET

AL LEY

I J

PR

IM AR YS

TR

EE

T
S S IDE

TR

EE

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

182

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

GARDEN COURT
HEIGHT
A Stories, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max) A Feet, front 65% / rear 35% of lot (max)

Feet, front 65% of lot depth, allowable height increase

B Side Wall Plate Height (max)

U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A 2.5/1 2.5/1 30/19 30/19 1 for every 5 increase in lot width over 50 up to a maximum height of 35 25 25

SITING
ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min) Zone Lot Width (min) Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max) SETBACKS Primary Street, block sensitive setback required Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior (min) Rear, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
G Detached Accessory Structures Allowed

U-RH-2.5 6,000 ft2 50 3/10 yes 20 5 5 12/20

U-RH-3A 6,000 ft2 50 3/10 yes 20 5 5 12/20

C C D E F

Not Allowed/Allowed From alley; or From street when no alley present See Sec. 5.3.7.6 See Sec. 5.3.4

DESIGN ELEMENTS
BUILDING CONFIGURATION Upper Story Stepback, for Flat Roof, Above 25: Primary Street and Side, Interior (min) H Street-Facing Courtyard Width (min) I Street-Facing Courtyard Depth (min) Garden Court Design Standards GROUND STORY ACTIVATION
J

U-RH-2.5 10 15 30 See Sec. 5.3.5

U-RH-3A 10 15 30

Pedestrian Access

Each dwelling unit shall have a ground story Entrance. At least two Entrances facing Primary Street and all others facing interior courtyard

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-11

183

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

E. Row House (1 of 2)
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

B A

ALLEY G F G F G F

SIDE STREET

5.3-12 |

SIDE STREET

E E

EE

PRIMARY STREET

AL

LEY

I I
PR IM AR YS

I
TR EET

E SID

STR

EE

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

184

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

ROW HOUSE (1 OF 2)
HEIGHT
A Stories, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max) A Feet, front 65% / rear 35% of zone lot depth (max) B Side Wall Height (max)

U-TU-B2* 2.5/2.5 35/35 25

U-RH-2.5 2.5/1 35/19 25

U-RH-3A 2.5/1 35/19 25

C C D E F

U-TU-B2* U-RH-2.5 U-RH-3A SITING ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min/max) 6,000 ft2 / 9,375 ft2 6,000 ft2 / na 6,000 ft2 / na Zone Lot Width (min) 50 50 50 Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max) 3/na 3/10 3/10 SETBACKS Primary Street, block sensitive setback required yes yes yes Primary Street where block sensitive setback does not apply 20 20 20 (min) Side Street (min) 5 5 5 Side Interior (min) 5 5 5 Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12/20 12/20 12/20 PARKING Surface Parking between building and Not Allowed/Allowed Primary Street/Side Street From alley; or From street when no alley present Vehicle Access See Sec. 5.3.7.6 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES BUILDING CONFIGURATION Upper Story Stepback, for Flat Roof, Above 25: Primary H Street and Side Interior (min) Street facing attached garage door width per Primary Structure GROUND STORY ACTIVATION I Pedestrian Access

U-TU-B2* 10 20

U-RH-2.5 10 20

U-RH-3A 10 20

Each unit shall have a street-facing Entrance

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions *Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one of the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the functional street classifications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-13

185

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

F. Row House (2 of 2)
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

ALLEY H SIDE STREET C E F F FF E D B B PRIMARY STREET D B D J

AL LEY

SIDE STREET

M M
PR IM AR YS

M
TR EET

L
E SID STR EE

PROTECTED DISTRICT

PROPERTY LINE

5.3-14 |

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

186

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

ROW HOUSE (2 OF 2)
HEIGHT
A Stories (max) A Feet (min/max)

U-MX-2 U-MX-2x 2 na/32 U-MX-2 U-MX-2x

U-MX-3 3 na/40

U-RX-5 5 na/70

U-MS-2 U-MS-2x 2 na/32 U-MS-2 U-MS-2x

U-MS-3 3 na/40

U-MS-5 5 24/70

SITING
ZONE LOT Use Restrictions REQUIRED BUILD-TO
B Primary Street (min % within min/max) C Side Street (min % within min/max)

U-MX-3

U-RX-5 Second Story and Above: Residential Only 70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

U-MS-3

U-MS-5

na

na

Ground Story within required build-to portion must have at least one primary use, other than parking of vehicles 75% 0/5 If Residential Only: 75% 0/10 25% 0/5 If Residential Only: 25% 0/10 0 0 0 U-MS-2x: 5 10 0 0/10 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 U-MX-2x: 5 10 0 0/10

70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

SETBACKS
D Primary Street (min) E Side Street (min) F Side Interior (min)

Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District (min)

G Rear, (min)

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access ACCESSORY STRUCTURES H Detached Accessory Structures Allowed

Not Allowed/Allowed

Not Allowed/Not Allowed

From alley; or From street when no alley present; See Sec. 5.3.7.6 See Sec. 5.3.4 U-MX-2 U-MX-2x na na 20 U-MS-2 U-MS-2x na na 20

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES
BUILDING CONFIGURATION Upper Story Setback Above 27 adjacent to Protected I District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Upper Story Setback Above 51, adjacent to Protected J District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Street facing garage door width per Primary Structure (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION
K Transparency, Primary Street (min) L Transparency, Side Street (min)

U-MX-3 15/25 na 20

U-RX-5 20/25 35/40 20

U-MS-3 15/25 na 20

U-MS-5 20/25 35/40 20

30% na

30%

M Pedestrian Access See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions

60%; If Residential Only: 40% na na 25% 25% 25% Each unit shall have a street-facing Entrance 30%

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-15

187

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

G. Courtyard Apartment

Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

ALLEY

F SIDE STREET D C B

F SIDE STREET

E E C B PRIMARY STREET

EE C B

I H M
PR
PROTECTED DISTRICT PROPERTY LINE

AL

LEY

IM AR G YS TR E

K
ET

L
S S IDE

TR

EE

5.3-16 |

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

188

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

COURTYARD APARTMENT
HEIGHT
A Stories (max) A Feet (max)

U-MX-2 U-MX-2x 2 35 U-MX-2 U-MX-2x 70% 0/15 0 0 0 U-MX-2x: 5 10 0 0/10

U-MX-3 3 45

U-RX-5 5 70

SITING
B C D E

U-MX-3 70% 0/15 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

U-RX-5 70% 0/15 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

REQUIRED BUILD-TO Primary Street (min % within min/max)* SETBACKS Primary Street (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior (min) Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District (min)

F Rear (min)

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access

Not Allowed/Allowed Shall be determined as part of Site Development Plan Review U-MX-2 U-MX-2x 15 30 na na 20 30% 25% Entrance

DESIGN ELEMENTS
G H I J

U-MX-3 15 30 See Sec. 5.3.5 15/25 na 20 30% 25% Entrance

U-RX-5 15 30 20/25 35/40 20 30% 25% Entrance

K L M

BUILDING CONFIGURATION Street-Facing Courtyard Width (min) Street-Facing Courtyard Depth (min) Courtyard Design Standards Upper Story Setback Above 27, adjacent to Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Upper Story Setback Above 51, adjacent to Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Street facing garage door width per Primary Structure (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION Transparency, Primary Street (min) Transparency, Side Street (min) Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions *Courtyard Width counts toward the required Build-To

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-17

189

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

H. Apartment (1 of 2)

Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

ALLEY E E

5.3-18 |

SIDE STREET

SIDE STREET

ALLEY

PRIMARY STREET

PRIMARY STREET

AL

LEY

F
PR IM AR YS

TR

EE

SID

T ES

RE

ET

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

190

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

APARTMENT (1 OF 2)
HEIGHT
A Stories (max) A Feet (max)

U-RH-3A* 3 38

SITING
ZONE LOT Zone Lot Size (min/max) Zone Lot Width (min) Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min) SETBACKS
B Primary Street, block sensitive setback required B C D E

U-RH-3A* 6,000 ft2 / 16,000 ft2 50 3 yes 20 10 5 12/20 Not Allowed/Allowed Shall be determined as part of Site Development Plan Review

Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) Side Street (min) Side Interior (min) Rear, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access

DESIGN ELEMENTS
BUILDING CONFIGURATION Street facing garage door width per Primary Structure (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION
F Pedestrian Access, Primary Street or Side Street

U-RH-3A* 20 Entrance

See Sections 5.3.5 - 5.3.7 for Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions *Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one of the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the functional street classifications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-19

191

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

I.

Apartment (2 of 2)
Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

ALLEY G G G

PROTECTED DISTRICT

5.3-20 |

SIDE STREET C

SIDE STREET

FF

F F

D B

D B PRIMARY STREET

D B

I
AL

LEY

PR
PROPERTY LINE

IM AR YS

TR

EE

S IDE

TR

EE

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

192

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

APARTMENT (2 OF 2)
HEIGHT
A Stories (max) A Feet (min/max)

U-MX-2 U-MX-2x 2 na/32 U-MX-2 U-MX-2x

U-MX-3 3 na/40

U-RX-5 5 na/65

U-MS-2 U-MS-2x 2 na/35 U-MS-2 U-MS-2x

U-MS-3 3 na/40

U-MS-5 5 24/70

SITING
ZONE LOT Use Restrictions REQUIRED BUILD-TO
B Primary Street (min % within min/max) C Side Street (min % within min/max )

U-MX-3

U-RX-5

U-MS-3

U-MS-5

Residential Only. MS: Ground Story within the required build-to portion must have at least one primary use, other than parking of vehicles 70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 U-MX-2x: 5 10 0 0/10 70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 70% 0/15 na 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 75% 0/10 25% 0/10 0 0 0 U-MS-2x: 5 10 0 0/10 75% 0/10 25% 0/10 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 75% 0/10 25% 0/10 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

SETBACKS
D Primary Street (min) E Side Street (min) F Side Interior (min)

Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District (min)

G Rear, alley and no alley (min)

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access

Not Allowed/Allowed

MS: Not Allowed/Not Allowed

Shall be determined as part of Site Development Plan Review U-MX-2 U-MX-2x U-MS-2 U-MS-2x

DESIGN ELEMENTS
H

U-MX-3

U-RX-5

U-MS-3

U-MS-5

J K L

BUILDING CONFIGURATION Upper Story Setback Above 27adjacent to Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Upper Story Setback Above 51, adjacent to Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) Street facing garage door width per Primary Structure (max) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION Transparency, Primary Street (min) Transparency, Side Street (min) Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

na na 20 30% 25%

15/25 na 20 30% 25%

20/25 35/40 20 30% 25% Entrance

na na 20 40% 25%

15/25 na 20 40% 25%

20/25 35/40 20 40% 25%

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-21

193

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

J.

Drive Thru Services

Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

SIDE STREET F D E PRIMARY STREET B I H

PR IM AR YS

J
TR EE T

S IDE

TR

EE

5.3-22 |

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

194

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context Division 5.3 Design Standards

DRIVE THRU SERVICES

HEIGHT
A Stories (max) A Feet (max)

U-MX-2 U-MS -2 2 35 U-MS-2, -3, -5 Option A

U-MX-3 U-MS-3, -5 3 45 U-MX-2, -3 Option A U-MX-2, -3 Option B

SITING
ZONE LOT Use Restrictions REQUIRED BUILD-TO
B Primary Street (min % within min/max)* C Side Street (min % within min/max)*

Automobile Services, Light and/or Primary Use with Accessory Drive Thru Use, excluding Eating/ Drinking Establishments Additionally, in U-MX-2, 3 Option B is limited to Gasoline Service Station Use Only 50% 0/15 50% 0/15 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 50% 0/15 50% 0/15 0 0 0 10 0 0/10 na na 0 0 0 10 0 0/10

SETBACKS
D Primary Street (min) E Side Street (min) F Side Interior (min)

Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District (min) G Rear, alley and no alley (min) Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min) PARKING Surface Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Vehicle Access

Not Allowed/Not Allowed

Not Allowed/Allowed

Allowed/Allowed

Shall be determined as part of Site Development Plan Review U-MS-2, -3, -5 Option A U-MX-2, -3 Option A U-MX-2, -3 Option B

DESIGN ELEMENTS
BUILDING CONFIGURATION

H *Canopy

Screening Required

Building shall be used to Building shall be used to meet a meet a portion of the Primaportion of the Primary or Side Street ry and Side Street Build-To. Build-To. Canopy may be used to na Canopy may be used to meet meet a portion of the Primary and a portion of the Primary and Side Street Build-To Side Street Build-To Garden Wall required within 0/15 for 100% of the zone lots Primary and Side Street frontages, excluding access points and portions of building within 0/15, following the standards of Article 10, Section 10.5.4.3 U-MS-3, -5 Only: 15/25 U-MX-3 Only: 15/25 U-MX-3 Only: 15/25

Upper Story Setback Above 27 adjacent to Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min) GROUND STORY ACTIVATION J Transparency, Primary Street (min) K Transparency, Side Street (min) L Pedestrian Access, Primary Street

60% 25% Entrance

40% 25% Entrance

40% 25% Pedestrian Connection

DENVER ZONING CODE

June 25, 2010

| 5.3-23

195