2009_0330_ Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WRITES For More Information D Form-based codes: www.fo rmbasedcodes.o rg D Downtown Kendall: doverkohl.com/ pro ject_detail_pages/kendal I_new.htm I D Columbia Pike: See "New Planning Tool Adopted," Urban Land, June 2003, page 32 D St. Lucie County: tcrpc.org/departments/ stud io/st_lucie_charrette/im plementatio n _schedule.htm D Central Petaluma: cityofpetaluma.net/ cdd/cpsp.html over time; those rules are much more lenient than in today's zoning codes. A well-written form-based code avoids the rypical scenarios facing developers: D Wasting time and money on a concept that ends up being unacceptable to a communiry. D Fearing to propose something desirable because too many variances or discretionary approvals would be required. D Inquiring as to desirable uses on a site and being told with a shrug to come bacl< with a proposal. The guessing game is removed when a communiry writes what is desired into its codes. The new process can replace grueling public hearings in which each proposal is picl<ed apart, redesigned from the dais, or sent bacl<to the drawing board, only to end up with unexpected special conditions or out- right denial inFluenced by whoever shows up at the final public hearing. When consensus has been built at the beginning of the planning and coding process, and the rules are clear and concise, the approval process can be much quicl<er, if not absolutely streamlined. As Peter Parlc, Denver's planning director, has asl<ed, "Why shouldn't Denver streamline permitting of development that matches what the ciry wants?" Disadvantages The advantages of form-based codes come with certain costs. Building consensus on a physical vision tal<es time, patience, and resources—and there is no guarantee of success. �%S URBAN LAND SEPTEMBER 2006 Once a shared vision has been reached, it must be converted into objective code provi- sions that replace contradictory provisions in the existing ordinances. Without this step, a visionary plan stands little chance of inFluenc- ing the future of a communiry. It is a true test of patience and persever- ance for elected officials to stay the course when the inevitable naysayers appear at the last minute and want to rethinl<the shared vision that they were too busy to help formu- late. Developers, who stand to benefit from the new system, often remain silent or even blocl< the new code's path if they are focused only on their current project rather than the long-term vitaliry of the communiry. Developers who are lod<ed into old devel- opment patterns may also object to form- based codes. Change can be difficult; devel- opers of conventional strip centers may admire more intense mixed-use buildings, but fear the risl< of a different development pat- tern or fear out-of town competitors with more experience with mixed-use buildings or tradi- tional neighborhood development techniques. The development approval process in much of the United States has proven to be antagonistic, expensive, unpredictable, and unsustainable. Form-based codes are crafted around consensus, straightforward to imple- ment, and built on the ideal of creating places of enduring value. As Arlington devel- oper David DeCamp stated when discussing the Columbia Pil<e experience, "It helps to begin with the end in mind:' nnnRV nnn��eN isaprincipalintheWashington, D.C.-based urban design and town planning firm Fer- rell Madden Associates, LLC. B I L L 5 P I KO W 5 K I IS d principal in Spikowski Planning Associates, located in Fort Myers, Florida. They are founding board members of the Form-Based Codes Institute.