vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 231-K-09-003
November 2009

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Principal author:
Kevin Nelson, AICP, US EPA

Contributing authors:
Amy Doll, ICF International
Will Schroeer, ICF International
Jim Charlier, Charlier Associates
Victor Dover, Dover, Kohl & Partners
Margaret Flippen, Dover, Kohl & Partners
Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates
Lee Einsweiler, Code Studio
Doug Farr, Farr Associates
Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates
Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack

Contributors and reviewers from US EPA:
John Frece
Abby Hall
Lynn Richards
Megan Susman

Document Layout:
Colin Scarff, Code Studio

Additional Participants: January 2008 and October 2008 Workshops:

US EPA:
Geoff Anderson
Kevin Nelson
liana Preuss
Lynn Richards
Tim Torma

Center for Planning Excellence (host of January 2008 workshop)
Elizabeth "Boo" Thomas
Camille Manning-Broome

-------
CONTENTS






    Introduction   2



    Allow or Require Mixed-Use Zones   4



    Use Urban Dimensions in Urban Places   7



    Rein In and Reform the Use of Planned Unit Developments    10



    Fix Parking Requirements   14



    Increase Density and Intensity in Centers   18



    Modernize Street Standards    22



    Enact Standards to Foster Walkable Places   27



    Designate and Support Preferred Growth Areas and Development Sites   31



    Use Green Infrastructure to Manage Stormwater    34



     Adopt Smart Annexation Policies   38



     Encourage Appropriate Development Densities on The Edge   42
             November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
INTRODUCTION
Smart growth creates lively
walkable places that bring
businesses to the street.
                                                       INTRODUCTION
Across the country, state and local governments are searching
for ways to create vibrant communities that attract jobs, foster
economic development, and are attractive places for people to
live, work, and play. Increasingly, these governments are seek-
ing more cost-effective strategies to install or maintain infra-
structure, protect natural resources and the environment, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What many are discovering
is that their own land development codes and ordinances are
often getting in the way of achieving these goals.

Fortunately, there is interest in tackling these challenges. As
the nation's demographics change, markets shift, and interest
in climate change, energy efficiency, public health, and natural
resource protection expands, Americans have a real opportu-
nity to create more environmentally sustainable communities.

To address these issues, many local governments want to
modify or replace their codes and ordinances so that future de-
velopment and redevelopment will focus on creating complete
neighborhoods—places where residents can walk to jobs and
services, where choices exist for housing and transportation,
where open space is preserved, and where climate change
mitigation goals can be realized. Many local governments,
however, lack the resources  or expertise to make the specific
regulatory changes that will create more sustainable commu-
nities. And for many, model codes or ordinances can be too
general for practical use or are often designed to be adopted
wholesale, which many communities are unprepared to do.

To respond to this need, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Development, Community, and Environment
Division (DCED), also known as the Smart Growth Program,
has put together this document to help those communities
that may not wish to revise or replace their entire system of
codes and ordinances, but nevertheless are looking for "essen-
tial fixes" that will help them get the smarter, more environ-
mentally responsible, and sustainable communities they want.
        Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
To find the changes that can be most helpful, DCED convened
a panel1 of national smart growth code experts to identify
what topics in local zoning codes are essential to creating the
building blocks of smart growth. This document presents the
initial work of that panel. It is an evolving document, one that
will be regularly revised, added to, and updated. It is intended
to spark a larger conversation about the tools and informa-
tion local governments need to revise their land development
regulations.

The purpose of this document is to identify the most common
code and ordinance barriers communities face and to suggest
actions communities could take to improve their land develop-
ment regulations. Given the effort and political will that is nec-
essary to make any changes to local regulations, the suggested
code provisions are separated into three categories:

•   Modest Adjustments: Code suggestions in this category
    assume the local government will keep the existing
    regulations and is looking for relatively modest revisions
    that will help it remove barriers to building smart growth
    developments or create a regulatory framework where all
    development types are on equal footing. Examples include
    changing code language from minimum setbacks or park-
    ing requirements to maximums.

•   Major Modifications: Code suggestions in this category
    assume the local government is looking to change the
    structure of the existing code. Suggestions include creat-
    ing incentives for smart growth development or creating
    overlay zones and mixed-use districts.
•   Wholesale Changes:  Code suggestions in this category as-
    sume the local government wants to create a new regula-
    tory framework, such as creating a form-based code or
    requiring sidewalks and alleys.
Every community is distinct, with different landscapes, natural
resources, demographics, history, and political culture. Some
communities have found that an incremental approach to code
changes works best, while others have found success in whole-
sale change. This document strives to provide a starting point
for all communities by recognizing their wide variability.

The document includes eleven Essential Fixes to the most
common barriers local governments face when they want
to implement smart growth approaches. Each Essential Fix
describes the problem and how to respond, expected benefits,
and implementation steps. Other resources include practice
pointers and examples.

This tool does not include model language, nor is it intended
to provide model codes or ordinances. The information here,
however, can help communities evaluate their existing codes
and ordinances and apply the information to achieve smart
growth objectives. This document focuses primarily on bar-
riers in suburban and urban communities. Similar issues
regarding rural development will be addressed in a subsequent
document that is under development. The intent is to continu-
ally revise, update, and expand the information provided here.
Please send comments, feedback, or suggestions to the EPA
project manager, Kevin Nelson, AICP, at nelson.kevin(q)epa.
goy or 202-566-2835.
i        The panel met in January and October 2008. See the Acknowledge-
ments for a list of participants.
                                     November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
ALLOW OR REQUIRE MIXED-USE ZONES
         ALLOW  OR   REQUIRE  MIXED-USE
         ZONES
INTRODUCTION
A common problem with the conventional Euclidean zon-
ing used by many communities is its focus on separating
potentially incompatible land uses. This separation has made
our development patterns inefficient, forcing residents to
drive longer distances to get to their jobs, schools, shops, and
services, which increases traffic congestion, air pollution, and
greenhouse gas emissions. The underlying health and safety
problems that zoning was designed to address 80 years ago—
separating homes from factories, stock yards, and other "nox-
ious" uses—are still important, but in our current economy,
many commercial uses and workplaces can be integrated with
homes without "noxious" effects. The health and safety goals
of separating uses must now be placed in context with a range
of other problems that are created by not allowing uses where
they will be most efficient. Such separation can frustrate ef-
forts to promote alternative modes of transportation and create
lively urban places.
Rockville Town Square in Maryland contains a vibrant mixture of offices, residences, retai and gathering space for people to enjoy.
                                                fill
       Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
                                                                                Mixed land use can integrate
                                                                         offices,  retail and residences so that
                                                                           vehicular trips can be minimized.
RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
The response to this problem is to encourage or require more
mixed-use zones. Mixed-use zones will look different in vari-
ous contexts, from downtowns to transit-oriented development
(TOD) to commercial corridors to the neighborhood corner
store. Communities should be mindful of these variations
so that there is not a "one size fits all" solution for how land
uses are mixed to accommodate market conditions and design
expectations. Requiring vertically mixed-use buildings, such as
a building with ground-floor retail and offices or residences in
the upper floors, along older, pedestrian-oriented corridors can
reinvigorate a sleepy street. Alternatively, simply permitting a
variety of uses within one zoning district allows a horizontal
mix of uses that can break up the monotony of single uses,
such as strip centers or single-family housing. This horizon-
tal mix can make a street more interesting and bring stores,
services, and workplaces closer to residents.

EXPECTED  BENEFITS
•   Reduction in vehicle miles traveled, resulting in lower
    greenhouse gas emissions, lower commuting costs, and
    decreased road congestion.
•   More balanced transportation systems that support walk-
    ing, bicycling, and public transit, as well as driving.
•   Livelier urban spaces with public gathering places  and a
    variety of shops, restaurants, and entertainment.
•   Complete neighborhoods where residents can live, work,
    and play.
•   Diversity of housing for people of all incomes and  at all
    stages of life.
•   More vibrant commercial areas that provide retail and
    services for patrons.
•   More compact development that helps preserve open
    space in outlying areas by reducing the need and demand
    for low-density, sprawling development.
•   Efficient use of services and infrastructure, resulting in
    cost savings for the public.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Define mixed-use areas/activity centers in land use plans
    (on a neighborhood, community, and/or regional scale),
    and designate preferred locations for them.
  •  Permit residences in the upper floors of buildings in ap-
    propriate existing commercially zoned districts.
2. Major Modifications
  •  Remove obstacles to mixed-use development by creating
    zoning districts that allow mixed-use development by right
    (i.e., without the need for a rezoning or special discretion-
    ary approval process).
  •  Develop a variety of mixed-use districts, including vertical
    mixed uses and horizontal mixed uses, as needed. The
    context of uses (e.g., main street, neighborhood setting) is
    important for determining the type of mixed-use district.
  •  Designate mixed-use districts on the official zoning map.
3. Wholesale Changes
  •  Synchronize zoning codes and area plans to coordinate
    the location and development of mixed-use districts.
                                     November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
ALLOW OR REQUIRE MIXED-USE ZONES
PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Consider mandatory mixed-use development in preferred
    locations (e.g., near transit stops) to ensure that these
    prime locations are not used for low-density, single-use
    development.
•   Adopt compatibility standards to ensure adequate transi-
    tions to adjacent, lower-density uses. Consider architec-
    tural, design, open space, operational, and other categories
    of transitional standards.
•   Tailor development standards  (such as parking, open
    space, and landscaping regulations) for mixed-use devel-
    opments so as not to create unintended hurdles for this
    preferred development form. For example, typical park-
    ing requirements often do not reflect the reduced need
    for parking typical of most mixed-use developments. The
    additional land that such excessive standards require for
    parking  can spread out growth so that lively, compact
    developments are hard to achieve.
•   Use market studies to ensure an appropriate amount of
    commercially and residentially zoned land. Avoid re-
    quiring more vertically mixed uses than the market can
    support. Horizontal mixed-use districts can allow the
    market to determine the appropriate mix of uses. Estab-
    lish standards for the development of each use within the
    area to ensure contiguous retail  areas. In these locations,
    establish triggers such as achieving market benchmarks
    for renewed planning  efforts as the area begins to change.
•   Level the playing field for mixed-use developments. For
    example, make sure that single-use commercial strip
    developments are held to the same high design and other
    standards required of mixed-use developments.
•   Create incentives for mixed-use development, such as a
    wider array of permitted uses in mixed-use districts (as
    opposed to single-use  districts), increased densities, and
    accelerated application processing.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   International City/County Management Association and
    Smart Growth Network. Getting  to Smart Growth: 100 Poli-
    cies/or Implementation. 2002. EPA 231^-05-001. http://
    www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/getting_to_sg2.htm.
Ewing, R., Bartholomew, K., Walters, J., Chen, D. Growing
Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate
Change. Urban Land Institute. 2008. p. 25.
Lewis, L. "Celebration Traffic Study Reaffirms Benefits
of Mixed-Use Development." Transportline. HDR. 2004.
http://www.hdrinc.com/Assets/documents/Publications/
Transportline/September2oo4/CelebrationTrafficStudy.
pdf.
Coupland, A. Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development.
Routledge. November 1996. p. 35.
Williams, K. and Seggerman,  K. Model Regulations and
Plan Amendments For Multimodal Transportation Districts.
Florida Department of Transportation. April 2004. pp.
7-14. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/
pdfs/MMTDregs.pdf.
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Pro-
gram. Commercial and Mixed- Use Development Code Hand-
book. October 2001. pp. 33-38. http://egov.oregon.gov/
LCD/docs/publications/commmixedusecode.pdf.
Morris, M., ed. "Sec. 4.1: Model Mixed-Use Zoning District
Ordinance." Model Smart Land Development Regulations.
Interim PAS Report. American Planning Association.
March 2006. pp. 3-5. http://www.planning.org/research/
smartgrowth/pdf/section4i.pdf.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. SmartCode, Version 9.2.
February 2009. http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smart-
filesv9_2.html.
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed Use Develop-
ment Design Manual. March 2004. pp. 56-64. http://per-
mits.springsgov.com/units/planning/Currentproi/Comp-
Plan/MixedUseDev/IV-%2oE.pdf.
         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
         USE  URBAN   DIMENSIONS  IN
         URBAN  PLACES
INTRODUCTION
Conventional zoning codes are typically replete with various
dimensional standards that govern a range of topics, includ-
ing minimum lot sizes and widths, floor area ratios, setbacks,
and building heights. These standards are generally geared
to produce low-intensity, low-rise residential and commercial
development. Even codes for more mature urban areas often
reflect this lower-density orientation. While this development
pattern may be appropriate in some areas and under some
circumstances (e.g., around environmentally sensitive ar-
eas), these standards often have unintentionally stifled more
compact development in many cities and towns, preventing
the development of attractive, lively, and cost-efficient places.
Recalibrating dimensional standards can help accommodate
and promote a more compact development pattern and create
attractive urban environments. Changes in dimensional stan-
dards can also improve connectivity enhanced site planning
and design. (See Essential Fixes Nos. 4 and 6 for street- and
parking-related dimensional standards.)
This street in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC exhibits a mature development of a city street.
                             November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
USE URBAN DIMENSIONS IN URBAN PLACES
RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
Cities across the country have been built based on the avail-
ability of land and proximity to jobs and amenities. Dimen-
sional standards were established to accommodate these
conditions. As communities and prosperity yielded larger lots
and more spread-out development, communities began to
reassess their function and design. A compact, walkable neigh-
borhood is achieved through design and direction from codes
and ordinances. A principal way of creating this type of place
is through modifications to the dimensional standards—that
is, the size of lots, setback requirements, height restrictions,
and the like.

Form-based codes are a typical response for communities that
are looking to increase options for compact form and walk-
able neighborhoods. Components  of form-based codes include
regulating plans,  building form standards (building siting
and height), and optional architectural elements. In essence,
the form of the building is more important than the use that
occupies it.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   More compact development patterns that help preserve
    open space in outlying areas.
•   Higher density development that supports transit and
    mixed-use activity centers.
•   A more attractive public realm that is designed to balance
    pedestrians and bicyclists with the car.
•   Cost-efficient provision of infrastructure and services.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Tailor dimensional standards in the development code to
    promote more compact development. Consider changing
    minimum standards to maximums.
    - For residential development, relevant changes could
      include lot width and area changes, smaller yards,
      increased lot or building coverage for smaller lots, in-
      creased height, and increased density.
    - For commercial or mixed-use development, relevant
      changes could include increased height, smaller yards
      and open  space, increased lot or building coverage, and
      increased floor area ratios (FAR).
  •  Replace FAR with form standards such as height and
    maximum setbacks. Consider limiting building footprints
    in neighborhood commercial areas.
  •  Modify codes for commercial districts to allow residential
    development, especially over first-floor retail.
  •  Eliminate landscape buffers in the commercial area; there
    is no need to buffer like uses, such as two office buildings
    or a restaurant and a store, from each other.
2. Major Modifications
  •  Create incentives to provide multiple housing types in
    existing districts through dimensional standards (e.g., en-
    able small lots and limited buffer yards between homes).
  •  Establish or reduce block lengths or perimeters to produce
    better connections and increase walkability.
Pedestrians traverse through a neighborhood park to reach homes and businesses that are built to the street line, creating appropriate
dimensions for common open space amidst small lots.
         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
  • Adopt context-based or neighborhood-based dimensional
    standards that replicate existing, appealing, compact
    neighborhood patterns (e.g., narrow street width, side-
    walks wide enough for safe and comfortable walking).
  • Revise the codes for existing districts to encourage neigh-
    borhood redevelopment by applying new dimensional
    standards such as smaller lot requirements.
  • Create districts for new compact building and develop-
    ment types that are not currently found in your commu-
    nity or neighborhood. (See the discussion of mixed use in
    Essential Fix No. i.)
3.  Wholesale Changes
  • Coordinate new form-based dimensional standards, such
    as the siting of buildings, with zoning map changes to
    reflect the nature of form-based development versus use-
    specific zones.
  • Plan a subarea of the community, then develop or cali-
    brate and adopt a form-based code to create an option for
    additional compact, walkable neighborhoods.

PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Where significant change in dimensional standards is pro-
    posed, create a computer model, preferably in 3-0 (using
    ArcGIS or a similar program),  of the existing standards  in
    comparison to the proposed standards.
•   Consider design and operational compatibility standards
    to ensure that new compact development is compatible
    with surrounding lower-density residential neighbor-
    hoods.
•   Revise subdivision specifications and standards (e.g.,
    narrower streets, reduced minimum driveway width) to
    encourage denser, more compact development.
•   Relate dimensional standards to the transportation system
    (e.g., modify setbacks based on right of way instead of the
    street width).
•   Replace standards that allow a  variety of forms, such as
    FAR, with ones that provide a consistent benchmark,  such
    as height requirements.
•   Include other agencies, such as the public works or fire
    departments, early in discussions regarding efforts to
    revise dimensional standards.
•   Analyze stormwater management requirements of denser
    developments, and consider green infrastructure ap-
    proaches. (See Essential Fix No. 9.)
EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Pro-
    gram. Commercial and Mixed- Use Development Code Hand-
    book. October 2001. pp. 40-43. http://egov.oregon.gov/
    LCD/docs/publications/commmixedusecode.pdf.
•   Freidman, S.B. and American Planning Association. Plan-
    ning and Urban Design Standards. John Wiley and Sons.
    April 2006. pp. 664-666.
•   City of Franklin, Tennessee. "Chapter 5: Dimensional
    Standards." City of Franklin Zoning Ordinance, http://
    www.franklintn.gov/planning/Side-by-Side%20Compari-
    son%2oWorkshops/Chapter%2O5/Side-by-side%2oCom-
    parision%2oCh%2O5-%2oPart%2oOne.pdf. Accessed
    August 12, 2009.
•   City of Durham, North Carolina. Durham City-County Uni-
   fied Development Ordinance, http://www.durhamnc.gov/
    udo. Accessed August 12, 2009.
•   City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed Use Develop-
    ment Design Manual, pp. 56-64. March 2004. http://per-
    mits.springsgov.com/units/planning/Currentproi/Comp-
    Plan/MixedUseDev/IV-%2oE.pdf.
•   U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Neighborhood
    Development (LEED-ND). http://www.usgbc.org/leed/nd.
    Accessed May 15, 2009.
•   Parolek,  D. et al. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners,
    Urban Designers, Municipalities and Developers. John Wiley
    and Sons, Inc.: New Jersey. 2008. pp. 12-17.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
REIN IN AND REFORM THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
        REIN  IN  AND  REFORM  THE  USE  OF
        PLANNED   UNIT  DEVELOPMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The inflexibility of Euclidean single-use zone districts, in-
appropriate development and dimensional standards, and
Byzantine approval processes have given rise to the use of
negotiated developments in many communities. These negoti-
ated developments usually take the form of planned unit devel-
opments (PUDs), planned developments, or master-planned
communities. This discussion will use PUD as the collective
term. PUDs allowed communities to overcome some of the
strictures of Euclidean zoning and provided a vehicle for local
government to negotiate community benefits such as ad-
ditional open space, recreational facilities, better design, and
contributions to infrastructure. PUDs, which spread rapidly
after the concept was introduced in the 19605, are attractive
because they are often simpler and quicker than seeking mul-
tiple amendments and variances to an outdated zoning code.

Originally, PUDs were conceived of and used to allow flexibil-
ity in design standards to take advantage of site characteristics
or to address community goals (e.g., clustering development
to provide open space or protect sensitive natural areas). PUDs
were meant to achieve higher quality developments and meet
community goals better than the standard subdivision and
New Town in St. Charles, Missouri features is a planned unit development that encapsulates a variety of smart growth and new
urbanism features including compact development, mix of land uses and design guidelines to create a distinctive place.

        Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
zoning regulations would allow. Sea Ranch in Northern Cali-
fornia was a model of PUD, using attractive design to better
integrate with the natural environment. Many of the initial
Traditional Neighborhood Developments  (TNDs) were ap-
proved through a PUD process.

Today, however, relatively standard subdivisions are being
approved using PUDs as an alternative to rewriting zoning
and subdivision regulations for time and cost considerations.
PUDs allow communities to impose conditions as part of the
approval, which cities use to ensure they receive the appropri-
ate infrastructure, off-site improvements, and fees to offset
development impacts. The initial objective of distinctive or
attractive design, however, often is lost as part of the PUD
process.

The PUD approach has now proliferated to the point that
most projects of any size or significance are approved that way.
Some observers estimate that upwards of 40 percent2 of all
residential units in the United States each year are approved
through a PUD process, not conventional zoning. The result is
that many growing cities are not the products of their land use
plans and zoning codes, but rather the result of individually
negotiated agreements. Indeed, in a growing number of com-
munities, all major developments are being reviewed through
the PUD process.3

As this trend proliferates, communities have increasingly
recognized the downside of relying too heavily on PUDs and
negotiated developments, including:
•   There is significant uncertainty for developers, who have
    no standards to guide the development  approval process,
    and for neighbors of proposed PUDs, who find that they
    cannot rely on existing zoning or land use plans and that
    the city planning staff controls much of the planning
    process.
•   Project reviews can become longer, less efficient, and
    politically charged and can drag out for years.
•   Major planning decisions are made with less public input
    into defining the community objectives prior to a develop-
    ment proposal.
•   Environmental and design standards are often minimized
    in the process.
•   Often this process creates an administrative nightmare
    for staff that have to deal with multiple mini-zoning codes
    created for each PUD, each of which differs on develop-
    ment standards and other requirements.
•   The planning process becomes a project-by-project pro-
    cess rather than a comprehensive development review,
    and more of a political process than an evaluation of plan-
    ning regulations and community goals.

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
To respond to these problems, communities are reducing the
use of PUDs by updating their zoning districts and standards
to accommodate preferred development patterns and types.
They are also limiting the use of PUDs to larger projects that
can provide compensating community benefits without waiv-
ing key design and environmental standards.

Communities are attempting to get out in front of PUD pro-
posals by creating PUD zoning regulations or design guide-
lines. These are generally developed as part of a community
design process so that the city can define its goals for a site or
area prior to specific development proposals. Principles, regu-
lations, and design guidelines are then used in conjunction
with PUD zoning to provide clearer direction while allowing
the desired design flexibility.
2       Duerksen, C. "Rural Smart Growth Zoning Code Tools." American
Planning Association National Conference, April 28, 2009.
3
        Ibid.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
REIN IN AND REFORM THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
                                                                    Arterial  Blvd.
                                 II     \f    II
                               Neighborhood
                                             11
                                                                          Adjacent
                                                                          Neighborhood
                                       This drawing of the
                                       Belmar neighborhood
                                       shows how the
                                       development fits
                                       within the context of
                                       neighboring uses.
                                                                Hillside
EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   Increased certainty and predictability in the development
    review process while still allowing appropriate design flex-
    ibility.
•   Setting the basic goals and fundamental standards for
    an area's development prior to a specific development
    proposal:
    - Creates an efficient design and review process and
      requires less staff time to administer the development
      over time.
    - Adheres to community growth visions and goals as es-
      tablished in comprehensive plans and gives the develop-
      ment sector clear direction on the quality, character, and
      fundamental elements the community wishes to see in
      any proposal.
    - Prevents important design and environmental standards
      from being waived or weakened in the PUD process.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Reform the PUD process to ensure that the parcel is
    designed appropriately given topography, adjacent uses,
    and additional impacts in the PUD-designated areas, and
    reduce the use of PUDs on small sites (under 2 acres).
  • Remove or substantially reduce the need to use PUDs by
    fixing dimensional standards, particularly on small par-
    cels. (See Essential Fix No. 2.)
  • Create standards for PUD  (e.g., apply Traditional Neigh-
    borhood Design policies, standards, and design guidelines
    as base PUD regulations prior to receiving development
    proposals).
  • If PUDs are allowed, rein them in by establishing a mini-
    mum size for PUD projects,  identifying specific allowable
    locations, and prohibiting waivers or other weakening of
    important environmental and design standards.
2.  Major Modifications
  • Prohibit PUDs as an alternative to following comprehen-
    sive plans and zoning codes. This may require communi-
    ties to run public input processes to provide the detailed
    goals, objectives, and design  elements for individual
    development proposals for larger sites. The community
    may also decide to rewrite  its zoning regulations.
3.  Wholesale Changes
  • Create distinctive area and sector plans  that give clear
    guidance to staff and the development community as to
    the vision and intended built-out of development. Comple-
    ment these plans with accompanying zoning.
          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
  •  Prior to accepting a development proposal for an area,
    communities should undergo a public master planning
    process to set goals and objectives; map land use and
    zoning; and set standards, regulations, and development
    quality through guidelines for the entire planning area.
  •  Implement an overlay district that allows the develop-
    ment of a site or area if specific standards are adopted. An
    example could be  an overlay of the SmartCode or another
    set of development regulations onto an area designated in
    the comprehensive plan for future development.

PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Consider establishing a list of compensating community
    benefits (such as a park, sidewalks, or trails) that the com-
    munity expects in return for flexibility in uses, density,
    and other factors.  This will reassure the community that
    they will get benefits from development and provide some
    certainty for developers regarding negotiated benefits.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Newby, B. "Planned Unit Development: Planning Imple-
    mentation Tools." Center for Land Use Education. Novem-
    ber 2005. ftp://ftp.wi.gov/DOA/public/comprehensive-
    plans/ImplementationToolkit/Documents/PUD.pdf.
•   New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resourc-
    es. A Guide, to Planned Unit Development. State  of New
    York. Fall 2005. pp. 4-8. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/
    pdfs/PUDi.pdf.
•   Benton County, Oregon. "Chapter 100: Planned Unit
    Development in Corvallis Urban Fringe." Benton County
    Development Code. April 1999. http://www.co.benton.
    or.us/cd/planning/documents/dc-ch_ioo.pdf. Accessed
    August 12, 2009.
•   City of Westminster, Colorado. Design Guidelines for Tradi-
    tional Mixed Use Neighborhood  Developments. April 2006.
    pp. 12-18. http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/files/tmund.
    pdf.
•   City of Mountain View, California. "Precise Plans." http://
    www.mountainview.gov/city Jiall/community_develop-
    ment/planning/plans_regulations_and_guidelines/pre-
    cise_plans.asp. Accessed August 12, 2009.
•   St. Lucie County, Florida. "Chapter 7:  Recreation and
    Open Space Element." Land Development Code. May
    2009. http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.
    asp?pid=i464i&sid=9. Accessed August 12, 2009.
Larimer County, Colorado. "Proceedings of the Board of
County Commissioners, February 8,1999." http://www.
co.larimer.co.us/bcc/i999/BC99O2o8.HTM. Accessed
July 10, 2009.
                                   November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
FIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS
          FIX  PARKING   REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The parking standards found in many conven-
tional zoning codes can be a significant barrier to
lively, mixed-use developments and activity cen-
ters, especially in existing downtowns. Parking
standards commonly in use in the United States
often call for too much off-street parking and
require all or too much of it to be provided on
the development site. Also, many zoning codes
do not allow consideration of alternative parking
arrangements, such as shared parking or credit
for on-street parking that can reduce the need
for on-site spaces and help create a more attrac-
tive streetscape. Such regulations fail to recog-
nize the difference between parking demand in
various contexts.
 Codes and regulations should enable adjacent uses to share parking as
 evidences by the demand or overlap in this chart.
6am      9am
 Time of Day
12pm
3 pm
6pm
9 pm
12am
In many communities, the effect of conventional
parking requirements is to make redevelopment
of smaller parcels in older, mature areas infeasible and to
make dense, compact, mixed-use development nearly impos-
sible because of the code requirement for large expanses of
surface parking or expensive structured parking. Large areas
of surface parking in commercial areas discourage walking
and actually increase parking demand by forcing people to
drive between destinations. Frequently, zoning codes or de-
velopment regulations allow (or even require) surface parking
to be placed between buildings and the street, and they often
allow parking structures to be built as stand-alone uses—both
of which are deadly to vibrant, pedestrian-oriented places.
          RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
          Municipal governments across the country have been work-
          ing to create more effective parking management systems for
          at least a couple of decades. The best parking management
          systems have these characteristics in common:
          •  They recognize that too much parking can be a serious
             issue, but so can not enough parking. Regulating parking
             supply became common in the first place because of the
             issues caused when developers provided inadequate park-
             ing and parking spilled over into nearby neighborhoods.
             What is generally needed is "the right amount" of parking,
             which can vary widely by place and by time. Good parking
             systems are carefully balanced to be specific to their set-
             tings and are adaptable to changes over time.

         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                             A I—|-»A Uni
                                             -.-•., I—Htt Elvl
                                             ^^ I—I /*
                                   id Slams
                                 igeocy

-------
         ALLEY
                            RESIDENTIAL
     SHARED PARKING
Commercial & Residential Guest
                                                                          Parking can be
                                                                          accommodated
                                                                          through a variety of
                                                                          means including mixed
                                                                          use parking structures.
                                               DEDICATED PARKING
                                               «». _ Residential
•   They recognize that parking policy must be well integrated
    with overall transportation policy and land use policy.
    Transit services, good bicycle facilities, and a great walking
    environment can reduce parking demand significantly.
    Mixed-use development coupled with good walking
    environments can reduce parking demand even further.
    However, these transportation options must be in place
    before reducing parking requirements. For example, it
    makes little sense to reduce parking supply so that people
    will ride the bus if transit service levels are too low to at-
    tract ridership.
•   They take into account that parking is inherently expen-
    sive. Surface parking consumes valuable land, removing
    it from productive use. Structured parking incurs capital
    costs that can exceed $20,000 per space,4 thereby sub-
    tracting capital funds from development. Successful park-
    ing management systems reconcile the cost of providing
    parking with local taxation and fees, with the fine schedule
    for parking violations, and with the fees charged for use of
    parking.

Successful municipal parking management systems generally
incorporate some combination of the following strategies and
measures:
•   Lower Parking Supply Minimums - The minimum
    parking requirements in many local codes are based on
    demand studies conducted in spread-out suburban places.
    These studies reflect parking demand in settings where
    shoppers and workers do not or cannot walk or use tran-
    sit. In mixed-use settings with good pedestrian environ-
    ments, such regulations overestimate parking demand
    and have a self-fulfilling effect by making mixed-use devel-
                                            opment and redevelopment physically impossible.
                                            Off-Site Parking - In mixed-use environments, parking
                                            should be treated as a utility, not an on-site private activity.
                                            Requiring each landowner in a downtown to provide pri-
                                            vate parking on his or her parcel is akin to requiring each
                                            landowner to drill his or her own water well. Modern park-
                                            ing ordinances allow parking minimums to be met off
                                            site, although they may require that the parking location
                                            be within a maximum 600- to i,ooo-foot distance from
                                            the development. These could be private joint parking fa-
                                            cilities or public facilities owned by a parking district. The
                                            developer is still responsible for the cost of parking, either
                                            directly through capital fees or indirectly through prop-
                                            erty taxes. In some settings, it is feasible to "unbundle"
                                            parking from residential projects, allowing parking to be
                                            provided on the open market.
                                            Fee-In-Lieu System - In places where the city is providing
                                            public parking facilities or where a parking district has
                                            been created, provisions can be written that allow a devel-
                                            oper to pay a set fee in lieu (FIL) of providing parking sup-
                                            ply directly. The money from FIL payments is then used to
                                            expand public parking supply. It is important that any  FIL
                                            fee schedule be realistic about actual costs of parking.
                                            Shared Parking Credits - Spread-out parking require-
                                            ments assume that each business has its own separate
                                            parking supply and that it must be large enough to accom-
                                            modate the peak hour of the peak day of the year. That
                                            assumption results in excessive parking. Different parking
                                            uses peak at different times of day—office parking in the
                                            middle of the day, retail in late afternoon and on week-
4       U.S. EPA. Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance
Through Smart Growth Solutions. February 2006. EPA 23i-K-o6-ooi. p. 9.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
FIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS
    ends, restaurants in the evening. Shared parking provi-
    sions allow developers to reduce parking supply require-
    ments when different uses can share the same parking
    spaces.
•   Parking Enforcement - A pervasive cause of perceived
    parking shortages is the misuse of premium parking by
    employees. The closest, most convenient parking spac-
    es—storefront, on-street parking in particular—should
    be protected for use by customers. Yet in many places,
    these spaces are occupied by employees' cars. Even where
    time restrictions have been established, they are often
    poorly enforced or the fines are too low to deter routine
    abuse. This situation can be corrected by ensuring there
    is adequate employee parking nearby and by adequately
    staffing enforcement.
•   Public Transit - Many communities have reduced parking
    demand in mixed-use areas by improving transit service,
    especially for commuters. This approach is especially at-
    tractive because it reduces parking demand while improv-
    ing mobility and access. Transit provides environmental
    benefits as well, including reduced air pollution and
    greenhouse gas emissions.
•   On-Street Parking - The most valuable parking in most
    commercial and mixed-use places is parking on the street
    in front of businesses. Yet many cities are careless about
    keeping on-street parking or do not do enough to ensure
    the maximum number of spaces per block. Shifting from
    parallel to diagonal parking can increase parking supply
    by up to 30 percent per block face.

EXPECTED  BENEFITS
•   Lower cost of redevelopment and infill projects, helping
    them compete with outlying projects.
•   Lively, active, economically strong mixed-use districts that
    are regional destinations.
•   Increased tax base and tax revenues.
•   Increased transit patronage that supports increased levels
    of transit service.
•   More pedestrian-friendly environments.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
(Note: some of these measures are in support of code changes,
but are not in themselves addressed through the zoning or
land development code.)
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Create a parking overlay district in the parking code for a
    downtown or other mixed-use area. Reduce minimum off-
    street parking supply requirements in the overlay district
    based on recalculated demand resulting from alterna-
    tive transportation options, the mix of land uses, and a
    "park once" strategy that encourages parking in one place
    and walking to multiple destinations. Calculate a shared
    parking allowance based on the specific land uses in the
    overlay district.
  •  Develop residential parking permit provisions to help
    protect neighborhoods affected by overflow parking re-
    sulting from increased parking enforcement. Design the
    system to be applied in neighborhoods (not automatically
    citywide) based on criteria, such as the actual amount of
    on-street parking demand. Carefully manage and enforce
    the residential parking permit system to avoid abuse, such
    as sale of permits. Consider returning a portion of receipts
    from parking permit fees to the neighborhood in the
    form of street repairs and improvements. Consider sell-
    ing "commuter permits" for residential streets in parking
    permit districts near mixed-use centers, with all or some
    of the revenue returned to the neighborhood in the form
    of capital repairs and improvements.
  •  Work with the public works department to increase the
    amount of on-street parking in a downtown or other
    mixed-use center. Convert parallel to diagonal park-
    ing where feasible. Evaluate parking stall specifications
    (length and width) and reduce them if possible to increase
    parking supply.
  •  Establish  (in the code) authorization for parking advisory
    committees for specific areas where parking issues are
    controversial. Provide for the appointment of a cross sec-
    tion of stakeholders, including businesses and residents.
    Charter the committee to advise on parking studies and
    on potential changes to parking ordinances.
2. Major Modifications
  •  Undertake a comprehensive revision of the parking ordi-
    nance. Some specific revisions might include:
    - Revise the tables of parking supply minimums, reduc-
      ing them wherever possible to reflect context, transpor-
      tation options, and land use mix.
    - Develop a system of shared parking credits, either as a
      set percentage in connection with form-based codes or
      based on the land use mix in connection with zoning.
          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
    - Create parking overlay districts for downtowns and
      mixed-use centers, and write provisions for future ad-
      ditional overlay districts.
    - Unbundle parking from residential development in
      districts with higher densities and a mix of uses.
    - Allow off-site parking in dense retail districts and set
      limits for its distance from development sites.
    - Develop provisions to govern joint parking (i.e., parking
      allowed through contracts or leases with other busi-
      nesses or landowners) to ensure that parking supply
      commitments made in connection with development
      approval are honored  and maintained over time.
    - Allow some credit for on-street parking supply in retail
      districts. Allow for substitution of a form-based code in
      certain zone districts to simplify and eliminate the need
      for more detailed parking regulations.
  • Overhaul the parking enforcement system. Improve en-
    forcement of parking time limits by acquiring hand-held
    computers for issuing tickets (replacing a system of chalk-
    ing tires). Revise the parking overtime ordinance to pro-
    vide escalating fines for scofflaws (repeat offenders) and
    set fines at levels that deter abuse. Increase enforcement
    levels so that probability of being ticketed for overtime
    parking approaches certainty. Evaluate parking supply in
    and around parking overlay districts and identify parking
    supply to be available for commuter parking use. Develop
    a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) system to help protect
    neighborhoods impacted by overflow parking resulting
    from increased parking  enforcement.
3. Wholesale Changes
  • Work with the local or regional transit agency to develop
    a commuter transit pass that is bundled with a parking
    permit in parking districts and paid for with proceeds
    from the district's revenues, including tax revenues. Use
    this "universal pass" to increase transit patronage while
    managing commuter parking demand.
  • Institute paid parking for public parking supply in parking
    districts. Start with off-street, publicly owned parking.
    Pay kiosks for on-street parking can reduce streetscape
    impacts such as visual clutter from individual parking
    meters, are  more efficient, and are more convenient for
    customers.
PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Implement design standards for parking structures.
•   Tailor parking standards for infill areas as opposed to
    greenfield sites (e.g., fewer, smaller spaces in infill).
•   Provide priority parking for hybrid or alternative-fuel
    vehicles to encourage use of these vehicles.
•   Consider requiring a portion of the parking lot to be con-
    structed of pervious materials.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press,
    American Planning Association. 2005. Chapter 20.
•   Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Developing
    Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local jurisdic-
    tions: Best Practices. April 2007. pp. 14-18. http://www.mtc.
    ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_study/Aprilo7/
    bestpractice_o423oy.pdf.
•   U.S. EPA. Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the
    Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions. February 2006.
    EPA 23i-K-o6-ooi. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/
    parking.htm.
•   Maryland Governor's Office of Smart Growth. Driving
    Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices.
    March 2006. pp. 5-6. http://www.smartgrowth.state.
    md.us/pdf/Final%2oParking%2oPaper.pdf.
•   Litman, T. Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation, and
    Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. November
    2008. p. 15. http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
•   Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. Northwest Connecticut Park-
    ing Study - Phase II: Model Zoning Regulations for Parking
   for Northwestern Connecticut. Northwestern Connecticut
    Council of Governments and Litchfield Hills Council of
    Elected Officials. September 2003. http://www.fhiplan.
    com/PDF/NW%2oParking%2oStudy/NW%2oConnecti-
    cut%2oParking%2oStudy%2oPhase%2O2.pdf.
•   Forinash, C. et al. "Smart Growth Alternatives to Mini-
    mum Parking Requirements." Proceedings from the 2nd
    Urban Street Symposium. July 28-30, 2003. http://www.
    urbanstreet.info/.
•   Victoria Transport  Policy Institute. "Parking Maximums."
    TDM Encyclopedia, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm28.
    htm#_Toci2822O478. Accessed April 12, 2009.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
INCREASE DENSITY AND INTENSITY IN CENTERS
        INCREASE  DENSITY  AND
        INTENSITY  IN   CENTERS
INTRODUCTION
Density is probably the most discussed and least understood concept in urban planning. Residents and elected officials routinely
see the amount of development (e.g., the number of dwelling units, the square footage of commercial space) allowed on a site as
one of the most important consideration in local planning. "Too much" density is often seen as the cause of traffic congestion,
ugly buildings, loss of green space, crime, and many other ills. However, increasing the average density of infill, redevelopment,
and greenfield projects is crucial to improving the quality of life in the community. Higher density is important to protecting
open space and supporting transportation options like transit, walking, and biking. Furthermore, EPA researchs shows that
higher densities may better protect water quality—especially at the lot and watershed levels.
As a development center, the Ballston neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia has been designated to accommodate additional growth.
5      U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources Through Higher-Density Development. 2006. EPA 23i-R-o6-ooi.

        Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
Much of what people dislike about density is in reality the
result of development patterns that help to increase conges-
tion on arterials, single-use areas that emphasize driving to
get to destinations, and dense developments that are poorly
designed. And, unfortunately, many people associate density
with poorly managed rental or affordable housing develop-
ments. Fear of lower property values is often an underlying
concern of residents when discussing higher density develop-
ments.

Density itself does not determine the quality of development.
Many high-density areas, in fact, are the most desirable areas
in a region, such as Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., and
the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois. These areas are
attractive because the density is well designed, with appeal-
ing streetscapes, mixture of uses, site planning, and building
design. Despite the multiple benefits that can be derived from
projects with higher densities, gaining political approval for
higher density projects is often difficult and controversial.

Desire for privacy, feeling crowded, fear of crime, parking, and
compatibility with the character of the community are often
the issues  that residents cite as concerns with more dense
developments. Identifying techniques and requirements to en-
sure that higher density projects are compatible with existing
neighborhoods will help respond to these concerns.

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
The concept of density requires ample discussion and educa-
tion to allay misconceptions and correct misunderstandings
about its purpose and benefits. Increased density creates
the customer base needed for transit, retail, and amenities
residents want.  Residents of less dense communities may ask,
"Why can't we have the amenities that that community has?"
Often, the answer is that the other community is denser. The
benefits and resources discussed in this section provide the
foundation for a complete community, one that needs in-
creased density to  thrive.

Communities need to address density in a comprehensive
manner rather than project by project. There are a number
of strategies and tools that communities may use to decide
which parts of their community should be densest. Through
the comprehensive or general plan process, the community
should target areas that have the character and infrastructure
to support higher density development. Communities should
ensure that higher density developments go into mixed-use
areas that will allow walking and biking to shops and services,
which reduces driving and can minimize parking require-
ments. Lastly, communities should focus much of their higher
density where it can be served conveniently by bus or rail tran-
sit, which will also reduce the need to drive and provide other
environmental benefits.

These policies can be implemented through new mixed-use or
transit-oriented development (TOD) districts, changes in  zon-
ing designations, or modifying zoning to allow greater density
in existing districts. Other strategies include creating new
compatibility standards and design guidelines to improve tran-
sitions between higher density development and low-density
neighborhoods.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   Less pressure to expand development to outlying areas,
    thus protecting agricultural lands, natural open space,
    bodies of water, or sensitive habitat.
•   Buildings and developments that use less energy, less
    land, and typically less materials. Because of the more effi-
    cient buildings and the transportation options that reduce
    the need to drive, residents generate fewer greenhouse
    gases per capita.
•   More diverse communities with more opportunities for af-
    fordable housing, particularly in  areas that have high land
    values and scarce development sites.
•   More effective transit service. In  lower density neighbor-
    hoods, seven to eight units per acre is the minimum
    density necessary to  support transit service.6
•   Support for local shops and services that rely on custom-
    ers who can walk or bike from surrounding neighbor-
    hoods.
                                                                   Dittmar, H. and Ohland, G. The New Transit Town. 2003.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
INCREASE DENSITY AND INTENSITY IN CENTERS
STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Set minimum (as opposed to maximum) densities in
    general or comprehensive plans and zoning districts. This
    tool helps creates neighborhoods that are close-knit and
    vibrant and helps achieve benchmarks for citywide hous-
    ing policies and goals.
  •  Designate locations for higher density development cen-
    ters in comprehensive plans.
  •  Create activity center districts with higher densities,
    increased heights and FAR, and reduced parking require-
    ments. This can be done by creating specific zones, modi-
    fying existing zones, or creating a new overlay district that
    allows selective modification of existing zoning regula-
    tions in an already zoned area without changing all of the
    zoning of a parcel.
2. Major Modifications
  •  Tailor development standards (e.g., height limits and FAR,
    parking requirements, and open space and landscap-
    ing regulations) to accommodate denser developments.
    Urban-style projects should not be evaluated based on low-
    density development standards.
  • Rezone areas designated as activity centers based on com-
    prehensive plans to increase density, as opposed to using
    case-by-case rezoning.
3. Wholesale Changes
  • Use a redevelopment agency to purchase difficult-to-
    obtain or critical parcels. This is particularly effective with
    areas such as corridors, which often have smaller parcels
    that require aggregation to allow higher density develop-
    ment.
  • Establish minimum densities or intensities in community
    or regional mixed-use centers and transit-oriented devel-
    opments.
  • Use height, placement, coverage and perviousness re-
    quirements, rather than FAR, to regulate structured park-
    ing. For example, do not count structured parking toward
    FAR if it is screened from view with retail, residential or
    office structures, or is constructed above the ground floor
    of a structure.
  • Parking can be a costly component of development. Park-
    ing may be reduced as part of a TOD or a mixed-use, high-
    density district. Parking may also be "unbundled" from
    the residential units, which allows residents to choose not
    to purchase parking. (See Essential Fix No. 4.)
The Back Bay in Boston, Massachusetts serves as a center for commerce, housing and other activities. The intensity of resources here
minimizes pressure to develop elsewhere because of available infrastructure and services.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                               United States
                                               Environmental Proteetwjn
                                               Agency

-------
  • Set parking maximums rather than minimums to discour-
    age too much parking supply for a development. This will
    allow higher density development, as parking often limits
    a project's overall density.

PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Density is context sensitive; different levels of density will
    be appropriate in different places.
•   Adopt site and building design standards for higher den-
    sity projects to ensure high-quality, attractive development.
•   Consider offering density bonuses and flexible zoning
    standards to encourage construction of affordable hous-
    ing. Many jurisdictions have developed density bonuses,
    as well as allowable concessions or variances for specific
    regulations, as an incentive for affordable, senior, or dis-
    abled housing.
•   Designating a buildable envelope rather than specifying
    density allows flexibility in the number of units, which
    creates greater density while controlling variables such as
    height and setbacks.
•   Adopt transition/compatibility standards (e.g., building
    setbacks, open space, landscaping) to ensure that higher
    density projects in activity centers are compatible with sur-
    rounding neighborhoods.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density
    Development. January 2006. EPA 23i-R-o6-ooi. pp. 44-51.
    http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water_density.htm.
•   State of Georgia. "Minimum Density Zoning." Georgia
    Quality Growth Toolkit, http://www.dca.state.ga.us/in-
    tra_nonpub/Toolkit/Guides/MinDensZning.pdf. Accessed
    June 30,  2009.
•   Edelman, M. "Increasing Development Density to Reduce
    Urban Sprawl." Iowa State University Extension Service.
    1998. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/newsrel/i998/
    decgS/decgSio.html.
•   Coupland, A. Reclaiming the City: Mixed  Use Development.
    Routledge. November 1996. p. 35.
•   Williams, K. and Seggerman, K. Model Regulations and
    Plan Amendments For Multimodal Transportation Districts.
    Florida Department of Transportation. April 2004. http://
    www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMT-
    Dregs.pdf.
                          Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Pro-
                          gram. Commercial and Mixed- Use Development Code Hand-
                          book. October 2001. pp. 40-43. http://egov.oregon.gov/
                          LCD/docs/publications/commmixedusecode.pdf.
                          City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed Use Develop-
                          ment Design Manual. March 2004. pp. 56-64 http://per-
                          mits.springsgov.com/units/planning/Currentproj/Comp-
                          Plan/MixedUseDev/IV-%2oE.pdf.
                          Institute for Urban and Regional Development. "Relations
                          between Affordable Housing Development and Property
                          Values." Working Paper 599. University of California,
                          Berkeley. May 1993. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/prop_val-
                          ue.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2009.
                          California Housing Law Project. "SB 1818  - Density Bo-
                          nus." Fact sheet. 2004. http://www.housingadvocates.org/
                          facts A8i8.pdf.
                          Shoup,  D. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press,
                          American Planning Association. 2005. Chapter 20.
November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
MODERNIZE STREET STANDARDS
          MODERNIZE  STREET   STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
For several decades, municipal decisions about the size and
design of streets have been based primarily on traffic capacity
considerations. This narrow focus overlooks the fundamental
role that streets play in shaping neighborhoods and communi-
ties. Streets are an important use of land. The design of streets
influences the character, value, and use of abutting properties,
as well as the health and vitality of surrounding neighbor-
hoods. Street design also determines whether the area will
be walkable, whether certain types of retail will be viable, and
whether the urban landscape will be attractive and comfortable
or stark and utilitarian. These impacts, in turn, affect land val-
ues (and associated tax receipts) and overall economic strength
and resiliency. The character of streets can discourage or
encourage redevelopment, hasten or reverse urban flight, and
add or subtract value from abutting property. These are obvi-
ously important policy considerations for any municipality.

Street design also affects environmental factors, including the
volume of stormwater runoff, the water quality of that runoff,
and the magnitude of the urban heat island effect. Street trees
are particularly important: they remove carbon dioxide and
certain pollutants from the air; they intercept and absorb rain
before it reaches the street; they shade the landscape, reducing
ambient air temperatures in warm months; they add aesthetic
value to neighborhoods; and they slow traffic, improving pub-
lic safety.

Cities and towns have tended to make planning and design
decisions about streets one project at a time and based on a
limited perspective of specific sections of specific streets. This
narrow perspective ignores the fact that transportation systems
are comprised of networks of facilities. The macro-scale char-
acteristics of networks are more important than the micro-scale
design of specific street sections in determining how well a
local transportation system functions (including how much
capacity the system has).

This conventional project-by-project perspective has resulted
in poorly connected networks of oversized streets, rather than
well-connected networks of smaller streets. The resulting
connectivity problems have been exacerbated by the national
trend, beginning in the 19205, of letting developers make
network layout and connectivity decisions for streets built as
part of their subdivisions and commercial sites. The inevitable
outcomes have been poor connectivity, inconvenient circula-
tion, and over-crowded arterials. These outcomes, in turn, have
been detrimental to emergency service response, access to
existing businesses, and neighborhood walkability.

The issues around street design and network connectivity have
been further compounded by oversimplified and unsupported
theories about traffic safety. In recent years, transportation
engineering analysis has shown that street width; the size,
proximity, and orientation  of buildings and street trees; the
configuration of intersections; and the presence of on-street
parking all have significant effects on the speed and attentive-
ness of drivers. Designed properly, these elements can reduce
both accident frequency and accident severity.

Clearly, there is a need for  communities to update their ap-
proach to planning, designing, and building streets and street
networks.

         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                     A I—|-»A Uni
                                    -.-•., I—Htt Elvl
                                    ^^ I—I /*
 id Slams
igeocy

-------
This view of University Boulevard in Palo Alto, California includes amenities for cars and bikes.
  RESPONSE TO THE  PROBLEM
  Generally, cities have addressed street design issues through
  subdivision regulations rather than zoning ordinances, al-
  though that varies depending on the local regulatory structure.
  Form-based codes can provide a foundation for street design
  and, to a lesser extent, for connectivity, but additional design
  details and procedural requirements will be needed. The
  primary techniques that cities and towns are implementing to
  improve street design include:
  •   Complete Streets - Streets should be designed to serve
      all modes of travel equally well—pedestrians, bicycles, per-
      sonal vehicles, and transit.
  •   Narrow Local Streets - Local streets (streets that primarily
      provide access to abutting properties, as opposed to streets
      that primarily serve pass-through traffic) should be no
      wider than absolutely necessary.
  •   Context-Sensitive Thoroughfares - Arterial and collec-
      tor thoroughfares should be designed to fit the character
      of abutting lands and surrounding neighborhoods and
      should not be overly wide or designed to encourage inap-
      propriate vehicular speeds.
Pedestrian-Oriented Environments - Streets should be
walkable—safe, attractive, and convenient for pedestrians,
including people walking for utilitarian purposes as well
as people strolling and exercising.
Universal Design - Pedestrian facilities should be de-
signed to be convenient and safe for a wide variety of
people, including persons with disabilities, elderly people
and children, people pushing strollers, and strong, fit
pedestrians walking quickly.
Green Streets - Streets can be designed with features that
manage stormwater and protect water quality by reduc-
ing the volume of water that flows directly to streams and
rivers; using a street tree canopy to intercept rain, provide
shade to  help cool the street, and improve air quality; and
serving as a visible element of a system of green infra-
structure that is incorporated into the community.
On-Street Parking - On-street parking is not only a conve-
nient way to add value to properties in mixed-use districts.
It can also be a design strategy to make streets safer and
more appealing for pedestrians.
                                       November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes


-------
MODERNIZE STREET STANDARDS
                                                    Street
2'
8!
5'
8'
10'
10'
8'
8' 5'
           frontage.   walk  furnishing parking     vehicular
             zone     zone    zone
                   Commercial
                   Ground Floor
                                                 ^ane
 vehicular
   lane
parking   tree lawn sidewalk
                                      Residential
                                     Ground Floor
                   	     62' R.O.W.  	
                                                36' Curb to Curb
                  This street section showthe typical array of uses for a right of way including pedestrians
                  and automobiles.
Many communities, along with state departments of transpor-
tation, are addressing network connectivity issues by changing
their land development codes and subdivision regulations to
require minimum connectivity in new development and in
redevelopment. To be effective, these standards must address
both external connectivity (how well connected a development
is with the larger street network)  and internal connectivity
(how well the land uses in the development are connected with
each other). The most commonly used connectivity regulations
establish standards for:
•   Maximum block length and circumference or block area;
•   Minimum intersections per linear mile of roadway or per
    square mile of area; and
•   Connectivity Index (the number of street links divided by
    the number of intersections).

EXPECTED  BENEFITS
•   Improved safety for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
•   Reduced environmental footprint, including less storm-
    water runoff, less of a heat island effect, and less land
    consumed.
•   More walking and biking with attendant health benefits.
•   Value added to abutting properties and surrounding
    neighborhoods.
•   Increased tax base and tax revenues.
•   A more attractive city or town with more economic vitality
    and resiliency.
•   A more flexible, adaptive network to help avoid conges-
    tion.
•   Improved emergency response and emergency evacuation
    capability.
•   Reduced street maintenance costs.
•   Allowing people to drive less with no reduction in mobil-
    ity.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Revise the local street design standards to add a "road
    diet" cross section for appropriate streets that currently
    have four general purpose lanes with no on-street parking,
    no bike lanes, inadequate pedestrian space, or any combi-
    nation of these deficiencies. Set criteria for conversion to
    three lanes (two general purpose lanes and a two-way left
    turn lane) with either bike lanes or on-street parking and
    improved pedestrian amenities.
  •  Update the local street design standards to include univer-
    sal design criteria for pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalks,
          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
    and curb extensions. Create overlay design criteria for Safe
    Routes to School programs, transit corridors, downtowns,
    and other priority pedestrian areas.
  • Update design standards governing provision of street
    trees to increase the city's street canopy as new streets are
    built and as existing streets undergo major renovation.
    Clearly and permanently resolve issues of cost responsibil-
    ity for maintenance of street trees. Ensure that standards
    are realistic for the local climate, specifying appropriate
    tree species and appropriate designs to contain tree root
    structures.
  • Adopt a policy governing provision of bike lanes on arteri-
    als and collectors as streets are built and as existing streets
    undergo major renovation. Set standards for deciding
    which streets will have on-street lanes, taking into account
    spacing of facilities, speed of traffic, availability of right  of
    way, and other practical matters. This policy will be most
    effective if it is based on a local bicycle system plan that
    sets system objectives, defines facility types, and sets con-
    nectivity standards.
  • Begin developing and testing stormwater management
    designs such as rain gardens, bio-swales, and other tech-
    niques in preparation for development of green streets
    standards and policies.
2. Major Modifications
  • Because streets are integral to community form and
    character, the best way to set the stage for improvements
    in street design and street network connectivity is to
    embed street design principles in the comprehensive plan
    or community master plan.  In states and regions with
    growth management or environmental requirements
    governing preparation of local plans, this will be a neces-
    sary step prior to the measures described below. In most
    places, the planning foundation should take the form of a
    multimodal transportation master plan or a multimodal
    transportation element in the comprehensive plan.
  • Revise the street classification system to create a "mul-
    timodal corridor" designation. This  can also be handled
    as an overlay requirement without changing the underly-
    ing functional classification system. Use the multimodal
    corridor designation to apply complete streets principles
    (design for all modes) in specific corridors. A network of
    multimodal corridors based on local transit routes and on
    a bicycle system plan can guide both development review
    and prioritization of projects in a capital improvements
    program. This should be an interim step toward imple-
    mentation of complete streets requirements community-
    wide.
  • Revise street design standards to add "narrow local
    streets" categories. Create design templates for residential
    and commercial streets that are narrower than currently
    allowed.
  • Set minimum internal connectivity standards for new
    subdivisions based on maximum block length, block size,
    intersections per square mile, or a Connectivity Index.
  • Create a policy or update existing requirements to prevent
    any street abandonment  or closure that would reduce the
    connectivity of the street network.
3. Wholesale Changes
  • The need for a planning foundation applies to measures
    in this section as well. All of the measures described be-
    low should be based on an adopted multimodal transpor-
    tation master plan or multimodal transportation element
    in the comprehensive plan.
  • Overhaul the street design standards with the objective
    of reducing the future environmental footprint of streets.
    Incorporate complete streets provisions  and green streets
    principles. Adopt narrower lanes, narrower rights of way,
    and reduced-lane cross sections.
  • Reintroduce public alleys into the local transportation
    system. Create standards allowing and guiding provision
    of alleys in subdivisions and requiring them in large com-
    mercial projects. Add alley templates to the local street
    design standards.
  • Set minimum internal and external connectivity standards
    to be applied to all new subdivisions and large commercial
    projects and to guide local public works  decision-making
    relative to the capital improvements program.
  • Update the code to  significantly increase the amount of
    on-street parking in commercial and mixed-use districts
    and on residential streets.
                                     November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
MODERNIZE STREET STANDARDS
PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Involve emergency service providers and the public works
    and other departments early in comprehensive planning
    and before code revisions are drafted. Narrower lanes and
    reduced-lane cross sections  can be controversial, and city
    councils may be unwilling to override a fire chief's con-
    cerns about these issues. In many cases, coordination and
    cooperation between local departments have overcome
    such obstacles.
•   In many states, at least some degree of state guidance ap-
    plies to local street design standards. And in virtually any
    municipality, some important streets will be under state
    jurisdiction (e.g., state routes). For these reasons, early
    and continuing coordination with the state department
    of transportation is critical to the success of most of the
    measures outlined above.
•   Look for opportunities for cost savings and other ben-
    efits associated with narrower street standards, including
    reduced stormwater volume, reduced snow removal and
    other maintenance costs, and  other savings.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Handy, S., Paterson, R., and Butler, K. Planning for Street
    Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. Planning Advisory
    Service Report Number 515.  American Planning Associa-
    tion. May 2003. pp. 12-15. http://www.planning.org/apas-
    tore/search/default.aspx?p=2426
•   Institute of Transportation Engineers. Context Sensitive
    Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walk-
    able Communities: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice.
    May 2005. http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/or-
    ders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-o36. (Note: this document
    is being updated and is expected to be issued as a final
    recommended practice in late 2009.)
•   Larimer County, Colorado. Larimer County Urban Area
    Street Standards. April 2007.  http://www.larimer.org/en-
    gineering/gmardstds/UrbanSt.htm. Accessed June 25,
    2009.
•   City of Charlotte, North Carolina. Urban Street
    Design Guidelines. October 2007. http://www.
    charmeck. org/ Departments /Transportation/
    Urban+Street+Design+Guidelines.htm. Accessed June 25,
    2009.
Williams, K. and Seggerman, K. Model Regulations and
Plan Amendments For Multimodal Transportation Districts.
Florida Department of Transportation. April 2004. http://
www.dot.state.fl.us /planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMT-
Dregs.pdf.
National Complete Streets Coalition. http://www.complet-
estreets.org.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. Street Design Guidelines. July
2007. http://www.roanokeva.gov/85256A8Doo62AF37/C
8/$File/STREET_DESIGN_GUIDELINES.pdf. Accessed
June 14, 2009.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. SmartCode, Version 9.2.
February 2009. http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smart-
filesv9_2.html.
American Association of State Highway and Transpor-
tation Officials. Guidelines for Geometric Design of Very
Low-Volume Local Roads (ADT< 400). ist Edition. June
2001. https://bookstore.transportation.org/imageview.
aspx?id=45o&DB=3.
Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders. Neighborhood
Street Design Guidelines: An Oregon Guide for Reducing
Street Widths. Oregon Transportation and Growth Manage-
ment Program. November 2000. http://www.oregon.gov/
LCD/ docs /publications /neighstreet.pdf.
Mozer, D. "Planning: Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendly
Land Use Codes." International Bicycle Fund. April 2007.
http://www.ibike.org/engineering/landuse.htm. Accessed
September 13, 2009.
Metro Regional Government (Portland, Oregon). Green
Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream
Crossings. June 2002. http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.
cfm/go/by.web/id=26335.
City of Boulder, Colorado.  "Multimodal Corridors."
April 2006. http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.
php?option=com_content&task=view&id=355&Itemid=i62
4. Accessed June 12, 2009.
          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
         ENACT  STANDARDS  TO  FOSTER
         WALKABLE   PLACES
INTRODUCTION
In smart growth communities, people are able to walk com-
fortably and safely to work, school, parks, stores, and other
destinations. Current codes in many communities, however,
result in places that prevent or discourage walking by impos-
ing low-density design (see Essential Fix No. 2), including
overly wide streets and landscapes designed for cars instead
of people (see Essential Fix No. 6). In such places, the pedes-
trian realm is treated as an afterthought—the space left over
between the edge of the street and the buildings and park-
ing lots. One significant challenge to developing a walkable
community is the lack of design standards or performance
measures for walkability, like those that guide other kinds of
transportation planning and design. Thus many communities
are not in a position to guide private development and public
works investments to build good pedestrian accommodation
into development and redevelopment, and they do not have
programs or provisions to repair older, pedestrian-hostile
areas. The magnitude of this need has been highlighted in
recent years both by the number of pedestrian injuries and
fatalities and by the health effects that less physical activity—
which is often a direct result of urban design—have had on
the U.S. population.

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
The two primary elements to be addressed through codes are
design standards for facilities, including public works facili-
ties built by and for the city (e.g., streets and sidewalks), and
requirements for private development and redevelopment
projects. Communities usually regulate facility design through
design standards adopted as ordinances or as administrative
rules. In addition to guiding the planning and design deci-
sions for municipal facilities, these design requirements may
                                               Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado shows the street view of how wide
                                               sidewalks can contribute to a pleasant walkable experience.
                             November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes


-------
ENACT STANDARDS TO FOSTER WALKABLE PLACES
be applied to private projects in
part through the zoning approval
process and in part through subdi-
vision regulations. In some com-
munities, form-based codes are
used not only to guide the design
of streets and sidewalks, but also
to create a connection between all
elements of the built environment.
Communities may also use level
of service7 standards to ensure that
development and redevelopment
projects meet minimum criteria
for walkability. Finally, commu-
nities may adopt Safe Routes to
School program planning and
design criteria and may designate
pedestrian districts or zones in
special areas (e.g., in downtowns,
around schools, near colleges and
universities).

EXPECTED BENEFITS
The fountain and plaza located at the entrance of a bookstore act as a central gathering and
meeting space in Bethasda Row.
    Safer communities with fewer pedestrian injuries and
    deaths from vehicle collisions.
    Healthier people because of more opportunities to walk or
    bike.
    More economically viable places, stabilized property
    values, and reduced retail leakage (where potential patrons
    go elsewhere, perhaps due to a lack of safe walking condi-
    tions).
    Increased transit ridership because of better pedestrian
    access to transit.
    Reduced parking demand in commercial areas due to
    "park once" strategy.
    Reduced driving as short trips are made by walking rather
    than driving.
    Reduced per capita emissions of criteria air pollutants8
    and greenhouse gases resulting from reduced driving.
                         STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
                         1. Modest Adjustments
                           •  Develop or revise street and street crossing design stan-
                             dards to improve pedestrian safety, convenience, and com-
                             fort, both as a part of routine public works projects and as
                             a part of ongoing development and redevelopment.
                           •  Adopt standards to incorporate trees and other shade
                             structures into the pedestrian realm, especially in mixed-
                             use districts, addressing maintenance and irrigation as
                             well as landowner responsibilities.
                           •  Prepare and implement a Safe Routes to School program,
                             taking advantage of federal funding and a national data-
                             base of successful examples.
                         2. Major Modifications
                           •  Designate one or more pedestrian districts (keep the
                             initial number small) where the community will focus its
                             efforts to make walking safer and more pleasant. Develop
7       Level of service is a measure of effectiveness by which traffic engi-
neers determine the quality of service of elements of transportation.

8       Criteria pollutants are monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, par-
ticulate matter, and sulfur dioxide and are regulated by EPA under the Clean
Air Act.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                                                        United States
                                                                        Environmental Proteetwjn
                                                                        Agency

-------
    a zoning overlay district to make targeted changes to the
    underlying zoning categories to reallocate street cross sec-
    tions, regulate building setbacks, and so forth. Prioritize
    capital improvement funding to pedestrian facility needs
    in the zoning overlay district. Build upon success by des-
    ignating additional pedestrian districts once the program
    has solid achievements to show in the initial district(s).
  • Establish pedestrian level of service and connectivity
    requirements for all development and redevelopment
    projects of more than two acres.  Include minimum pedes-
    trian connectivity within developments and with adjacent
    developments.
  • Adopt pedestrian environment standards for mixed-use
    districts to improve pedestrian safety, comfort, and con-
    venience, including requirements for on-street parking,
    build-to lines, minimum facade transparency, building en-
    trance spacing, canopies, and similar pedestrian-friendly
    elements.
3. Wholesale Changes
  • Prepare and adopt a pedestrian circulation element in the
    comprehensive plan or in a separate transportation master
    plan. Develop a prioritized multi-year pedestrian capital
    improvements plan to implement the circulation element.
  • Require major developments to include pedestrian circula-
    tion plans  as part of application or site plan submittals. Set
    and apply minimum connectivity standards and level of
    service criteria.
  • Revise subdivision and zoning development standards to
    require sidewalks  on both sides of streets in all develop-
    ments.
  • Require walkways in parking lots larger than i acre or 200
    feet wide, linking perimeter sidewalks to primary building
    entrances.

PRACTICE  POINTERS
•   Communities often adopt plans calling for the entire com-
    munity to be "pedestrian friendly." This  often turns out to
    be more a  slogan than a policy. Virtually any community
in the United States today has vast areas of landscape with
poor pedestrian accommodation, and fixing these areas
will take many years of investment and careful regulation.
Communities should implement regulations that prevent
new development of areas with inadequate pedestrian
accommodation and adopt standards that prevent con-
struction of any new streets with inadequate provisions
for pedestrians. Public investment to retrofit and improve
sidewalks, crosswalks, grade separations, and other facili-
ties should go initially to school zones and routes, down-
towns and other mixed-use districts, transit corridors,
and other areas where a significant pedestrian presence is
expected or desired.
Involve a wide range of stakeholders and city departments
(e.g., fire, police, public works) throughout any pedestrian
circulation  planning process.
One of the  most important characteristics of public
streets affecting pedestrian environments  is the speed of
vehicular traffic. Speeds above 30 mph make sidewalks
less pleasant and street crossings more dangerous and
difficult.
The most critical link in any pedestrian network is the
availability  of safe, appropriately spaced street crossings,
especially crossings of arterial streets. Communities need
good policies for location, frequency, and design of street
crossings, and they must invest in safe, well-designed
crossings if they want to develop functional, active pedes-
trian districts.
On-street parking is an important pedestrian feature that
protects walkers by separating sidewalks from moving
traffic. On-street parking also makes it easier for people to
walk to their destinations.
Cities must stay current with universal design require-
ments that  ensure sidewalks, trails, crosswalks, parking
lots, building entrances, and other features of the built
environment are fully accessible to people with physical
disabilities  and other physical challenges. The national
Americans  with Disabilities Act outlines specific regu-
latory requirements, which are expanded and updated
frequently.
                                     November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
ENACT STANDARDS TO FOSTER WALKABLE PLACES
EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Florida Department of Transportation. Multimodal Trans-
    portation Districts and Areawide Quality of Service Hand-
    book. November 2003. p. 26. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/
    planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf.
•   National Complete Streets Coalition. http://www.complet-
    estreets.org.
•   Dixon, L. "Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Perfor-
    mance Measures  and Standards for Congestion Manage-
    ment Systems." Transportation Research Record 1538.1996.
    http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/i538-ooi.
    PDF.
•   Landis, B. et al. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environ-
    ment, A Pedestrian Level of Service. Transportation Research
    Board Paper No. 01-0511. 2001. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/
    planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/pedlos.pdf.
•   U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Neighbor-
    hood Development Rating System Credit for Walkable
    Streets (Neighborhood Pattern and Design, Credit 7,
    in pilot version). http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.
    aspx?CM SPagel0=148. Accessed June 20, 2009.
•   Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. SmartCode,  Version 9.2.
    February 2009. http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smart-
    filesv9_2.html.
•   Ewing, R. Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer
    for Smart Growth. International City/County Management
    Association and Smart Growth Network. 1999. http://
    www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf.
•   Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks and
    Trails for Access: Pan I of II: Review of Existing Guidelines
    and Practices. 1999. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environ-
    ment/sidewalks/index.htm.
•   Federal Highway Administration. Designing Sidewalks and
    Trails for Access: Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide.
    2001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/
    index.htm.
City of Redmond, Washington. "Pedestrian Program
Plan." Transportation Master Plan. November 2005. http://
www.redmond.gov/connectingredmond/policiesplans/
tmpproiectdocs.asp.
National Center for Safe Routes to School. http://www.
saferoutesinfo.org.
City of Seatac, Washington. Pedestrian Overlay District.
Seatac Zoning Code. November 2002. http://mrsc.org/mc/
seatac/staci528.html. Accessed May 5, 2009.
Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition. Pedes-
trian Retail Overlay (PRO) District, http://www.cndc2.org/
prod.html. Accessed May 5, 2009.
Leaf, WA. and Preusser, D.F. "Literature Review on Ve-
hicle Travel Speeds  and Pedestrian Injuries." U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation. DOT HS 809  021. October 1999.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/iniury/research/pub/
hs8o9oi2.html.
Federal Highway Administration "Safe Routes to School:
Program Legislation - SAFETEA-LU, Sec. 1404." http://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/overview/legislation.
cfm#seci4O4. Accessed May 5, 2009.
          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                   v>EPA

-------
         DESIGNATE  AND  SUPPORT
         PREFERRED  GROWTH AREAS
        AND  DEVELOPMENT  SITES
INTRODUCTION
For many decades, most municipalities have handled land
development and growth reactively. Zoning changes have been
initiated primarily by landowners and developers. Developers
have often selected development locations that did not follow
city comprehensive plans. Subdivision and property assembly
have been undertaken by landowners and developers with spe-
cific development projects in mind. There is often a financial
incentive for developers to develop peripheral sites rather than
redeveloping infill sites. However, communities can better
control the development they get by focusing their resources
to catalyze redevelopment in desired areas.

Planning land uses and development intensities in preferred
growth areas and development sites generates several ben-
efits. It encourages and facilitates redevelopment and infill,
supports transit, and guides new development to appropriate
areas with ready access to existing infrastructure. Local govern-
ments need to play a more active role in selecting areas where
new growth makes the most sense. They need to reinforce
those choices by revising their development codes and capital
improvement plans to make these areas more attractive to the
development community than other, less appropriate areas.
This more focused approach to development can benefit both
individual landowners and the entire community.
A palm tree-lined pedestrian plaza leads to the entrance of
the largest apartment buildings at the center of Mizner Park
in Florida. Higher densities in this existing development
enable greenfields to be preserved.
                         November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes


-------
DESIGNATE AND SUPPORT PREFERRED GROWTH AREAS AND DEVELOPMENT SITES
RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
Municipalities need to be proactive
about determining where and to what
extent they will grow. This planning
can provide government officials
with the justification to say "no" to
development proposals that are not
in the community's best interests and
are inconsistent with the community
plan. Even in communities that cannot
keep up with infrastructure needs, many
local governments believe there is benefit in
encouraging more development. But to be effec-
tive on behalf of current residents and thought-
ful about the needs of future residents, cities
need to designate where growth will occur, then rezone,
change codes, and alter utility and infrastructure provisions to
accommodate that growth.

To focus development where it makes the most sense, a
community needs a detailed plan. This plan should include
comprehensive subdivision regulations and street mapping,
zoning, and design guidelines, as well as an infrastructure
plan and a financing or implementation plan. Developing the
plan should include a comprehensive stakeholder and public
engagement process. The designation of growth areas should
be supported by studies and data, such as a fiscal impact analy-
sis or a cost of infrastructure study.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   Greater predictability for infill proposals that meet the
    new development standards, and certainty of location and
    development potential for landowners, developers, and
    citizens.
•   More efficient development review processes. Complete
    policies on land use and development regulations will
    help streamline the review process and garner stronger
    support from the planning commission and/or city coun-
    cil.
•   Cost-effective provision of infrastructure. Focusing on and
    prioritizing infill development will use existing infrastruc-
    ture efficiently.
                                                               This rendering of Santa Clara, California illustrates how
                                                               the city has designated preferred growth areas to keep
                                                               distinctive places intact.


                                                          •   Preservation of open space and natural resources. Focus-
                                                              ing on infill development reduces pressure to expand on a
                                                              community's periphery or to develop in areas with sensi-
                                                              tive habitat or open space.

                                                          STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
                                                          (Note: Steps may be applied differently in infill versus green-
                                                          field locations.)
                                                          1. Modest Adjustments
                                                            •  Identify and map preferred growth areas in a comprehen-
                                                              sive plan. The plan should include goals and objectives for
                                                              the various areas.
                                                            •  Establish utility and transportation capacity plans.
                                                            •  Change the minimum lot size, requiring smaller parcels
                                                              to be aggregated or developed in conjunction with larger
                                                              parcels in a coordinated manner.
                                                            •  Designate agriculture interim/holding zones in lieu of
                                                              low-density zoning in areas where the local government
                                                              would rather not see imminent development.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                                                                                        United States
                                                                                                        Environmental Proteetwjn
                                                                                                        Agency

-------
  • Create district or area plans to guide development.
  • Vary fees for development based on location, as infill sites
    usually have lower infrastructure costs than peripheral or
    greenfield development.
2. Major Modifications
  • Enact an adequate public facility ordinance (APFO). An
    APFO helps ensure that infrastructure for schools, road,
    sewers, and fire protection exists to accommodate new
    development.
  • Establish a policy that sets criteria for annexation, includ-
    ing the provision of utilities, infrastructure financing, and
    minimum development thresholds. The policy should also
    include requirements for developing an annexation plan
    for the area.  (See Essential Fix No. 10 for more on annexa-
    tion issues.)
  • Establish urban service areas or boundaries as part of the
    overall master facilities plan to help phase development in
    coordination with infrastructure.
3. Wholesale Changes
  • Establish urban service areas or growth boundaries, and
    support them by zoning areas outside the boundaries for
    agriculture and other very low-density uses.
  • As part of detailed area plans, rezone designated growth
    areas (e.g., around transit stops  or regional activity  cen-
    ters) to allow denser development.

PRACTICE POINTERS
  • Coordinate local government capital investment plans to
    support development in designated growth areas and to
    discourage it in other areas.
  • Adopt a comprehensive plan land use map that depicts
    preferred development areas and clearly describes the mix
    of uses, community design principles, and key features
    desired for each area.
  • Coordinate with other local governments in the region to
    adopt supportive plans and designated growth areas. It is
    extremely important to coordinate what will happen in the
    areas between cities so that these community separators
    can be maintained over time.
                         •  It is also critical to strategically manage the phasing of
                           growth areas. Each town or city needs to find the appropri-
                           ate strategy for holding growth areas in check until they
                           are prepared for the types of development that the com-
                           munity envisions.
                         •  Communities need to find ways to prioritize development
                           so that key projects can be implemented earlier as cata-
                           lysts. Often, lower intensity or less complex developments
                           will be attempted first, which sometimes robs critical or
                           desired projects of their market opportunity and thus
                           pushes them off for many years. This is particularly true
                           of retail, which requires residential support and typically
                           will be drawn to automobile-oriented sites before the infill
                           sites the community may desire.

                       EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
                       •    Porter, D.  "Chapter 3: Managing Community Expansion:
                           Where to Grow." Managing Growth in America's Communi-
                           ties. Island Press.  November 2007.
                       •    Nolon, J.R. "Chapter 2:  Local Land Use Controls That
                           Achieve Smart Growth." Well Grounded: Using Local Land
                           Use Authority to Achieve Smart Growth. Environmental Law
                           Institute. July 2001.
                       •    Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. "Designated Rural Area
                           Concept." Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan. June
                           2005. http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning/lib/plan-
                           ning/long_range/growth_management/rural_area_con-
                           cept_summary.pdf.
                       •    City of Austin, Texas. Smart Growth  Initiative, http://
                           www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth. Accessed June 10, 2009.
                       •    City of Austin, Texas. Smart Growth Criteria Matrix. Febru-
                           ary 2001. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/
                           austin_matrix.pdf.
                       •    State of Maryland. Smart Growth Priority Funding Areas
                           Act 0/2997. http://www.mdp.state.md.us/fundingact.htm.
                           Accessed April 22, 2009.
                       •    City of Boulder, Colorado. Boulder's Open Space, <£ Moun-
                           tain Parks: A History, http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
                           index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=n67&Item
                           id=yi. Accessed May 12, 2009.
v>EPA
November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
USE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANAGE STORMWATER
        USE  GREEN  INFRASTRUCTURE  TO
        MANAGE  STORMWATER
INTRODUCTION
Many communities across the United States face the challenge
of balancing water quality protection with accommodating new
growth and development. Conventional development practices
cover large areas with impervious surfaces such as roads,
driveways, and buildings. Once such development occurs,
rainwater cannot infiltrate into the ground. Instead, it runs off
the land at much higher levels than would naturally occur. The
collective force of this runoff scours streams, erodes stream
banks, and carries large quantities of sediment and other pol-
lutants into waterbodies each time it rains. Most municipal
stormwater regulations require stormwater management only
at the site scale, using pipes, curbs, gutters, and basins. This
approach has functioned well to mitigate local flooding but
has resulted in degraded waterways and poor water quality at
the watershed scale. A conventional approach to managing
stormwater at the site scale fails to address the impacts of land
use on water quality, particularly:
•  Loss of natural land and disruption of water systems;
•  Increased impervious surface area; and
•  Increased stormwater runoff volumes.

Many local ordinances besides stormwater regulations pose
barriers to better stormwater management and watershed pro-
tection. Communities must also look beyond the site scale and
consider the impacts of where and how development occurs
across neighborhoods and watersheds.
This picture illustrates site level green infrastructure practices
such as landscaped swales to capture runoff.

        Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
Communities are recognizing that the water quality impacts
of development need to be managed at a variety of scales,
including the municipal, neighborhood, and site levels. Green
infrastructure uses natural and built systems at all three scales
to protect water quality.

At the regional or watershed scale, green infrastructure is the
interconnected network of preserved or restored natural lands
and waters that provide essential environmental functions. At
the community or neighborhood scale, green infrastructure
incorporates planning and design approaches such as com-
pact, mixed-use development; parking reductions; and street
trees and other vegetation that reduce impervious surfaces and
make communities more attractive. At the site scale, green
infrastructure mimics natural systems by holding stormwater
in rain gardens or swales to allow it to  absorb into the ground
(infiltration), using trees and other vegetation to convert it to
water vapor (evapotranspiration), and using rain barrels or
cisterns to capture stormwater for reuse.

Changing codes to support green infrastructure at all three
scales protects water quality while creating many other envi-
ronmental, community, and economic benefits. Local govern-
ments can incorporate green infrastructure by adopting plans,
removing barriers, enacting regulations, and creating incen-
tives for green infrastructure on both public lands and private
property. Certain local policies, such as landscaping and park-
ing requirements or street design criteria, can complement
strong stormwater standards and make it easier for developers
to simultaneously meet multiple requirements.

Communities can incorporate green infrastructure provisions
into codes, policies, and standard practices through a few es-
sential steps. First, the stormwater management plan review
would take place early in the development review process to
ensure that green infrastructure practices are thoughtfully
incorporated into plans. Next, zoning codes and building
codes need to result in the same goals  and objectives for green
infrastructure implementation. For instance, policies such as
harvesting rainwater for irrigation can be an effective green in-
frastructure strategy when permissible with building codes. To
make sure that green infrastructure policies are meeting water
quality and other goals, communities will need to monitor and
track implementation and maintenance.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   Reduced stormwater volume and velocity and fewer
    stormwater overflow events.
•   Less polluted stormwater runoff.
•   Lower cost for stormwater management facilities.
•   Urban heat island mitigation and reduced energy demand.
•   Potential recreational and aesthetic amenities.
•   Traffic calming.
•   More distinctive communities.
•   Increased land values.

STEPS TO  IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Add stormwater management requirements and water
    quality elements to comprehensive plans to recognize and
    allow green infrastructure stormwater management alter-
    natives in zoning and subdivision regulations.
  •  Complete the EPA Water Quality Scorecard. The tool gives
    local governments an idea of the range of green infra-
    structure policies and which might be right for a specific
    community.
  •  Offer zoning upgrades, expedited permitting, reduced
    stormwater requirements, and other incentives for
    development proposals that include green infrastructure
    practices.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
USE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANAGE STORMWATER
This mall, Pompano Fashion Square in Pompano Beach, Florida, is a good example of a parking lot that could be repurposed for g
infrastructure.
                                                                                                               reen
  • Encourage site-planning meetings early in the approval
    process to review the green infrastructure components
    of development proposals along with other site planning
    topics.
  • Develop incentives for homeowners to install rain barrels,
    rain gardens, green roofs, and other green infrastructure.
2. Major Modifications
  • Develop a performance standard that requires a system of
    stormwater management where stormwater infiltrates in
    ground, is either reused on site and/or evapotranspires,
    and avoids single-use facilities. Require developers to
    meet stormwater requirements using green infrastructure
    practices where appropriate.
  • Update the community's stormwater design manual with
    locally appropriate examples  and guidelines for designing,
    installing, and maintaining green infrastructure.
  • Review and change, where necessary, building and zoning
    codes or other local regulations to ensure that green infra-
                                                              structure is legal (e.g., remove restrictions on downspout
                                                              disconnection and stormwater reuse).
                                                            • Take into account rainwater harvesting and reuse when
                                                              setting the stormwater management requirements for a
                                                              development.
                                                            • Develop or revise stormwater utility bills to include a fee
                                                              based on impervious services to address  combined sewer
                                                              overflows and offer a fee discount based  on the use of
                                                              green infrastructure techniques.
                                                            • Conduct inspections of sites and develop mechanisms to
                                                              enforce stormwater management plans and maintenance
                                                              agreements.
                                                          3. Wholesale Changes
                                                            • Give fiscal credit to developers toward stormwater man-
                                                              agement requirements for preservation of trees and open
                                                              space, which help to decrease impervious surfaces  and
                                                              allow for stormwater infiltration.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
  •  Amend stormwater management regulations and devel-
    opment codes to allow off-site stormwater management,
    especially for infill and redevelopment areas.
  •  Require green infrastructure bonds or other revenue
    generation in zoning or subdivision ordinances to ensure
    proper operation and maintenance of green infrastructure
    stormwater management facilities.

PRACTICE POINTERS
  •  Engage local governments in regional stormwater man-
    agement strategies and coordinate future land use and de-
    velopment decisions for large-scale water quality benefits.
  •  Ensure that all local government departments/agencies
    coordinate with one another so that green infrastructure
    meets multiple community  objectives (e.g., allow rain
    gardens to meet landscaping requirements).
  •  Enact riparian buffer regulations to protect water resourc-
    es from nonpoint source pollution, stabilize banks, and
    provide aquatic and wildlife habitat.
  •  Consider separate stormwater management requirements
    for densely developed activity centers and infill sites as op-
    posed to greenfield development. Recognize that impervi-
    ous cover limits, open space requirements, and on-site
    detention requirements may be appropriate for large
    greenfield developments but not for more urban sites.
    Provide flexibility to allow off-site and regional stormwater
    management facilities, and give credit for alternative ap-
    proaches like pervious pavement and green roofs.
  •  Work with key staff from local agencies such as trans-
    portation, planning, and public works to integrate green
    infrastructure into all codes and ordinances.

EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   U.S. EPA. Water Quality Scorecard. August 2009. http://
    www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/gi_municipal_scorecard.pdf.
•   U.S. EPA. Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook, (series
    of publications) http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfra-
    structure/munichandbook.cfm.
•   U.S. EPA. Stormwater Management Handbook: Implement-
    ing Green Infrastructure in Northern Kentucky Communities.
    May 2009. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sgia_com-
    munities .htm#ky.
•   U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Quality with Smart Growth
Strategies and Natural Stormwater Management in Sussex
County, Delaware. January 2009. http://www.epa.gov/
smartgrowth/noaa_epa_techasst.htm#6.
U.S. EPA. "Source Water Protection." http://www.epa.gov/
nps/ordinance/sourcewater.htm. Accessed July 22, 2009.
U.S. EPA. "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for
Construction Activities." http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
stormwater/swppp.cfm. Accessed July 22, 2009.
U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density
Development. January 2006. EPA 23i-R-o6-ooi. pp. 23-29.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water_density.htm.
Center for Neighborhood Technology. "Green Values
Stormwater Toolbox." http://greenvalues.cnt.org. Accessed
June 20, 2009.
City of Portland, Oregon. "General Requirements and
Policies." Stormwater Management Manual. http://www.
portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35i22&a=55769. Ac-
cessed June 22, 2009.
Santa Clara Valley (California) Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program. Operations and Maintenance of Treat-
ment BMPs. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/om_work-
product__links.htm. Accessed June 20, 2009.
U.S. EPA. "Environmental Management Systems." http://
www.epa.gov/ems. Accessed June 22, 2009.
U.S. EPA. Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development  (LID) Strategies and Practices. December
2007. EPA 84i-F-o7-oo6. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/
Iid/costso7.
City of New York. "Water." PlaNYC. http://www.nyc.gov/
html/planyc2O3o/html/plan/water.shtml. Accessed May
19, 2009.
                                   November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
ADOPT SMART ANNEXATION POLICIES
                ADOPT  SMART
                ANNEXATION   POLICIES
INTRODUCTION
Communities often have the most influence over development
on their edges when land is annexed into a municipality. It
is then that the greatest opportunity exists to determine how
this land will help the community advance its overall plan-
ning goals and to ensure that the public costs of providing
infrastructure and services for the annexed area are balanced
with potential tax and other revenues from the annexed lands
(including any exactions or other requirements).

In most states, municipalities face enormous pressure to an-
nex lands. One of the most important forces driving annexa-
tion is communities' desire to increase their tax base, thereby
increasing revenues into municipal coffers. Further, in growth
areas in many states, municipalities fear that if they do not an-
nex aggressively, their neighbors may, hemming them in and
limiting their ability to grow. Finally, in many growth areas,
municipalities may believe the only way to ensure that growth
in the surrounding region occurs responsibly and according to
a plan is to annex areas to gain control over planning, develop-
ment, and design decision-making before development occurs.

Ad hoc annexation is a major cause and enabler of exurban
development and sprawl. Ironically, in many cases, the tax
burden from annexed areas may exceed the increase in tax
revenues, especially over the long term.

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
The principal policies that successful communities use to
handle annexations include:
•  Revising local codes to anticipate annexations in the com-
   prehensive planning process and to ensure that annexa-
   tions are consistent with adopted comprehensive plans;
•   Developing intergovernmental processes and agree-
    ments—between counties and municipalities, and
    between neighboring municipalities—to guide and govern
    planning for physical expansion and annexation; and
•   Establishing criteria for the review process leading up to
    potential annexations, including criteria for fiscal impact
    analyses.

Because many of the forces driving ad hoc annexation stem
from local competition for tax base, communities and re-
gions may also need to work together to rationalize their local
taxation systems, including consideration of revenue sharing
among jurisdictions.

EXPECTED  BENEFITS
•   Well-planned, contiguous municipal expansion that ben-
    efits the community, supports community character and
    quality  of life, and promotes compact development.
•   Creation of communities that are "tax positive"—places
    that have a logical and fiscally sound annexation of land
    where services and infrastructure are adequate.
•   Focus on intergovernmental collaboration instead of com-
    petition for territorial expansion leading to over-extension
    of municipal boundaries and the resulting scattered,
    leapfrog development.
•   Creation of logical, well-planned communities, instead
    of ad hoc formation of small incorporated municipalities
    intended primarily to prevent tax increases associated with
    annexation.
•   Orderly, planned community expansion that accommo-
    dates population growth and provides the tax base re-
    quired to meet the community's objectives.

         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                   A I—|-»A Uni
                                   -.-•., I—Htt Elvl
                                   ^^ I—I /*
 id Slams
igeocy

-------
This urban growth boundary shows a stark contrast between the developed and undeveloped areas of this community.
STEPS TO  IMPLEMENTATION
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Establish a code requirement that future annexations be
    consistent with the community comprehensive plan (or
    local equivalent), along with a requirement that the com-
    prehensive plan map and describe future potential areas
    of annexation. These could be developed using a sphere of
    influence/urban transition area approach, like that used
    in California's Local Agency Formation Commission, or
    tiered planning areas like those used by the city of Boulder
    and Boulder County, Colorado.
  •  Require future potential annexation areas mapped in
    the comprehensive plan to include a preliminary iden-
    tification  of anticipated zoning, as well as a preliminary
    description of how municipal services and infrastructure
    (e.g., water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, transportation,
    police, and fire) would be funded in annexed areas. This
    should be based on community service standards and an
    assessment of existing conditions and capacities in the
    mapped areas.
  • Require the mapping of potential future annexation
    areas in the comprehensive plan to identify and evaluate
    any prime agricultural lands, important wildlife habitat,
    areas of special ecological value or concern, and any lands
    contaminated by past industrial or agricultural activities or
    hazardous materials spills.
  • Establish a code requirement that the transportation
    element of the community comprehensive plan (or local
    equivalent) identify a future collector and arterial street
    network for any potential annexation areas mapped in the
    plan. Require extensions  of the existing municipal street
    network to be mapped to meet minimum internal connec-
    tivity standards in any annexed areas, as well as minimum
    external connectivity with existing and future neighbor-
    hoods.
2. Major Modifications
  • Adopt fiscal impact analysis requirements for proposed
    annexations, including criteria for the forecast ratio of
    revenues to costs. Include provisions for additional fees to
    rectify imbalances.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes


-------
ADOPT SMART ANNEXATION POLICIES
  • Establish a minimum contiguity requirement for any
    proposed annexation area. For example, at least 25 percent
    of the circumference of any proposed annexation must be
    coterminous with the existing incorporated area, subject
    to exceptions for bodies of water. An adjunct provision or
    variation would be to specifically prohibit "flagpole" an-
    nexations.9
  • Develop and adopt joint infrastructure standards  (e.g., wa-
    ter, sanitary sewer, stormwater, streets) for a municipality
    and its surrounding county, or by multiple municipalities
    and/or counties, to be applied to proposed development in
    areas that may eventually be annexed into a municipality.
    This ensures that any development in future annexation
    areas that occurs prior to annexation is compatible with
    the annexing community. It also ensures  that facilities are
    designed consistently with standards of the municipali-
    ties. This coordination discourages landowners or devel-
    opers from "shopping" one government against another to
    obtain the combination of services and fees—which could
    turn out to be a bad deal for the municipality.
3. Wholesale  Changes
(Note: some measures below are in support of code changes,
but are not in themselves addressed through the zoning or
land development code.)
  • Develop an intergovernmental agreement between one or
    more municipalities and one or more counties providing
    for development and adoption of a multi-jurisdiction com-
    prehensive plan. Include provisions for identifying areas
    of potential annexation and provisions for zoning, infra-
    structure, lands of special concern, and street extensions,
    similar to the four measures described under Modest
    Adjustments.
  • Develop an intergovernmental agreement between one or
    more municipalities and one or more counties to guide
    the annexation process in specific areas, which would be
    mapped in the agreement. Include provisions addressing
    infrastructure standards, funding for extension of infra-
    structure and services, and the approval processes of the
    affected jurisdictions.
  • Develop a  regional compact or intergovernmental agree-
    ment for revenue sharing to reduce or eliminate the pres-
    sure to annex land for municipal budget growth.
The Urban Development Boundary in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, illustrates the division between land intended for
development and area meant to be preserved.


PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Annexation law and policy are among the most contro-
    versial aspects of growth management. Many states are
    changing the laws governing the authority of municipali-
    ties to annex land, establishing or revising criteria for
    annexations, requiring additional review and approval by
    adjacent counties and municipalities, and providing for
    oversight by third parties or agencies. The first step for
    any municipality is to make sure that its  ordinances are
    consistent with state law.
•   Issues related to estimating costs of extending infrastruc-
    ture and municipal services into potential annexation
    areas are difficult to resolve if there are no agreed-upon
    standards for the timing, placement, and design of facili-
9       Flagpole annexations are connected to a municipality through a
narrow strip ofland.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
    ties and services. An important step in addressing annexa-
    tion policy issues is to work—ideally in cooperation with
    other area governments—on design and service standards
    to estimate the cost of providing facilities and services.
•   One of the potential benefits of good annexation policy,
    especially with multiple jurisdictions involved, is avoiding
    the leapfrogging of suburban subdivisions and commer-
    cial projects outside municipal areas.

EXAMPLES AND  REFERENCES
•   California Association of Local Agency Formation Com-
    mission. http://www.calafco.org.
•   Local Agency Formation Commission of Monterey Coun-
    ty, California. "Sphere of Influence Policies and Criteria."
    October 2006. http://ooosweb.co.monterey.ca.us/lafco/
    policy.htm.
•   Denver Regional Council of Governments. "Mile High
    Compact." August  2000. http://www.drcog.org/index.
    cfm?page=MileHighCompact. Accessed May 13, 2009.
•   City of Austin, Texas. Smart Growth Initiative, http://
    www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth. Accessed May 31, 2009.
•   City of Austin, Texas. Smart Growth Criteria Matrix. Febru-
    ary 2001. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/
    austin_matrix.pdf.
•   Boulder County, Colorado. "Intergovernmental Agree-
    ments ." http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/igas/index.htm.
    Accessed June 12, 2009.
•   Larimer County, Colorado. Rural Land Use Center, http://
    www.co.larimer.co.us/rluc. Accessed June 20, 2009.
•   Larimer County, Colorado. Larimer County Urban Area
    Street Standards. April 2007. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/
    engineering/GMARdStds/GMARdStds.htm.
•   Hinze, S. and Baker, K. Minnesota's Fiscal Disparities
    Programs. Minnesota House of Representatives Research
    Department. January 2005. http://www.house.leg.state.
    mn.us /hrd/pubs /fis caldis .pdf.
                                    November 2009 -  Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------
ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES ON THE EDGE
              ENCOURAGE  APPROPRIATE
              DEVELOPMENT   DENSITIES  ON
              THE  EDGE
INTRODUCTION
On the periphery of urban areas, suburbs, and small towns,
communities' development patterns are often not dense
enough to support mixed land uses or transit or to create other
efficiencies associated with denser development patterns, such
as cost-efficient infrastructure. At the same time, these areas
are often too dense for rural areas to maintain a truly rural
character. Rural development patterns typically:
•  Are supported by limited infrastructure (relying, for in-
   stance, on gravel roads and septic systems);
•  Cost less to support because they use fewer government
   services; and
•  Preserve large tracts of open space and agricultural lands.

This issue is most relevant to exurban development—areas
outside the jurisdictional boundaries of cities and towns. The
density is approximately 2 to 4 housing units per gross acre at
the more suburban end of the spectrum, and one unit per 20
to 40 acres at the rural end.  Many suburban, small town, and
county zoning codes and subdivision ordinances allow only
these densities. Densities can vary based on regional differenc-
es. For instance, Western states will have a different threshold
than those in the Southeast.

This low-density development pattern has been one of the fast-
est growing sectors of the housing market, fueled by a variety
of factors, including people moving to rural communities for
the quality of life, an expanding  second-home market for less
expensive vacation homes in small towns, and rural communi-
ties' desire to grow. Developers have also found such rural ar-
eas to be the "path of least resistance." They are generally able
to quickly obtain approvals through a county or rural town's
less complicated entitlement procedure.
Land use laws, particularly in the Western states, give exten-
sive rights to large landowners, ranchers, and farmers to de-
velop their properties in the future, typically at lower densities.
In these places, low-density residential zoning is the de facto
zoning that has been overlaid onto many large tracts of land.
This means  that many areas that are perceived to be rural are,
in fact, zoned for residential development that does not fit a
rural context.

The desire to remain rural or maintain a small-town character
is a common theme in these communities. Lower densities are
often encouraged in the belief that they will help preserve an
area's rural character. These densities, however,  most frequent-
ly translate into low-density, cookie-cutter subdivisions, with
streets and homes that are more typical of suburban, rather
than rural, communities. The most difficult densities are those
in the Vi-acre to 5-acre range. The difficulties with these densi-
ties include:
•  Expensive infrastructure to both provide and maintain to
   serve a minimal number of units;
•  Reliance on septic systems, which have a limited capacity
   over time;
•  A land use pattern that is difficult or impossible to intensi-
   fy later,  as it typically includes individual property owners,
   making land hard to assemble; and
•  Farmland that becomes fragmented by these large-lot
   homes,  which means little possibility of carrying on true
   agriculture or maintaining farm animals in these areas.

These densities are neither rural nor town-like in their charac-
ter. Once developed, they are difficult to change  and become
more difficult to maintain over time.
         Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009

-------
This aerial from suburban Dallas shows how the "Devil's Density" is built out on the edge of the town at residential density that is not
efficient with more compact development patterns.
This type of growth also becomes a jurisdictional, city-versus-
county issue. Much of this development pattern is occurring
within county jurisdictions at or near city limits because large
agricultural properties are being developed under county
development procedures. The counties often have minimal
regulations and limited resources to plan for, review, or pro-
cess these types of developments. This has made it difficult
to control the implementation of policies and restrictions as
well as standards for these developments. Developers often are
better equipped than county planning and engineering staff
to deal with the various complex issues that arise from these
developments.

RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM
Density that cannot support necessary services is not sustain-
able on any level—fiscally, environmentally, socially, and for
public health. In most places, zoning at one unit per 2 gross
acres typically cannot support necessary services. When zon-
ing at this density, communities usually are focused more on
the perceived market demand and/or potential tax revenue
than on what it will take in infrastructure and other resources
to support such a pattern. When communities look at the
potential impacts and decipher where they can make improve-
ments through increased densities as well as other zoning
changes, they can make their neighborhoods fiscally sound
and environmentally sustainable.
Finding a solution takes a balance of strategies, combining
those that eliminate the types of densities so persistent where
urban and rural communities meet with those that direct un-
sustainable development patterns away from these areas.

When communities grow, their comprehensive plans should
cover only areas that form a natural edge to the community
and that will not be expanded beyond or leapfrogged in the
future. An example may be an area bordering a creek or other
natural open space, which provides a natural barrier to expan-
sion and clearly defines an edge to the community. Another
strategy is to continue the town's street pattern to use the
infrastructure to its fullest capacity and then end in an agricul-
tural zone at the community's edge. This will better integrate
large lots into the community by using them to transition to
agricultural uses at the town's periphery.

These remedies only address the properties at a community's
edge. The most problematic developments are those that
employ unsustainable densities outside these areas as ranches,
orchards, and farms are developed. These sites are typically in
counties' jurisdictions. Counties and towns, therefore, need
to coordinate their planning efforts to minimize the ad hoc
development of rural  areas and integrate their comprehensive
plans to include expansion areas and areas that will be main-
tained for agriculture or open space. Towns and counties will
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes


-------
ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES ON THE EDGE
                                                             This New Jersey farmland is
                                                             punctuated by a low density
                                                             residential development
                                                             creating a conflict between
                                                             providing services to these
                                                             homes and preserving
                                                             agricultural uses.
need to tackle this issue together in a comprehensive manner
to address planning, engineering, property ownership, and
development issues.

EXPECTED BENEFITS
•   Lower infrastructure costs for local and state governments
    and service providers.
•   Preservation of large, contiguous blocks of open space and
    agricultural lands. This is most critical for protecting habi-
    tat corridors and maintaining viable agricultural activities
    and related businesses.
•   Support for downtowns and traditional neighborhood
    developments, with greater connectivity with the immedi-
    ate town or city.
•   Consistent and connected patterns of development instead
    of leapfrog growth, which disregards planned boundaries.
•   Minimizing the areas that are hamstrung by limited re-
    development potential due to ownership patterns and the
    lack of opportunities for land assembly.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION
(Note: Several implementation steps from Essential Fix No.
8 that support preferred growth areas also apply to this fix,
including agricultural interim holding zones, area-specific
impact fees,  adequate public facilities ordinances, annexation
policies, and urban services areas and boundaries.)
1. Modest Adjustments
  •  Adopt comprehensive plans that encourage sustainable
    development patterns in peripheral and exurban areas by
    redesignating density allocations.
  •  Amend zoning ordinances to repeal zone districts that al-
    low unsustainable densities at the community's edge.
  •  Develop design regulations that require connectivity and
    integration with adjacent neighborhoods and create transi-
    tions to adjacent agricultural or undeveloped areas.
2. Major Modifications
  •  Establish benchmarks for intended densities in compre-
    hensive plans in rural areas (e.g., one unit per 80 acres in
    some Western states).
  •  Require minimum densities in areas targeted for growth.
  •  Require cluster/conservation subdivisions at the commu-
    nity's edge to transition to rural areas. These subdivisions
    are for edge conditions only, with denser zoning on one
    side and rural areas on the other.
  •  Require comprehensive fiscal impact and mitigation anal-
    ysis for proposed rural developments. Require mitigation
    measures so that rural developments pay their own way.
  •  Use the SmartCode to categorize and implement the zon-
    ing regulations by classifying an appropriate transect for
    these urban-rural interface areas and adapting the regula-
    tions for the community.

          Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes - November 2009
                                              United States
                                              Environmental Proteetwjn
                                              Agency

-------
3. Wholesale Changes
  •  Preserve agricultural viability by zoning for large agricul-
    ture-only districts.
  •  Require mandatory annexation as a condition of devel-
    opment approvals in town impact areas (consider a "no
    objection" clause that is approved by the property owner
    when annexation is feasible and desired by the town. This
    clause will make the  annexation process predictable and
    fair).
  •  Encourage joint town and county policies that set criteria
    such as location or size controls to coordinate the develop-
    ment of land instead of insular land use resulting from
    PUDs. (See  Essential Fix No. 3.)

PRACTICE POINTERS
•   Depending on the state, land patterns, and types of agri-
    culture, the  appropriate acreage for agriculturally zoned
    parcels will vary.
•   Consider how rules related to lot splits  or family subdivi-
    sion rights chart the  course for inappropriate densities.
    Family subdivisions  are often used to get around mini-
    mum lot size regulations.
•   In the past, communities have zoned for economic
    development and property ownership interests, relying
    on unsustainable development patterns. Often, smaller
    towns see fees associated with low-density development,
    along with construction jobs and retail  sales, as economic
    development. Unfortunately, the cost of maintaining the
    public infrastructure frequently exceeds the value brought
    with the short-term economic development.
•   Do not allow cluster/conservation subdivisions in areas
    where true rural development patterns  are preferred. Clus-
    tered subdivisions disrupt agricultural operations.
•   In certain circumstances, land trusts have purchased
    conservation easements from farmers and ranchers that
    prohibit development. Selling the easement gives land-
    owners some financial benefit without having to develop
    their land. This strategy allows landowners to maintain
    their farms.
•   Transfer of Development  Rights (TDR) programs may be
    considered;  however, these programs are complex and will
    be feasible only in specific situations.
EXAMPLES AND REFERENCES
•   Duerksen, C. and Snyder, C. Nature-Friendly Communities.
    Island Press. May 2005. pp. 40-50.
•   Burchell, R. et al.  Costs of Sprawl—2000. Transit Coopera-
    tive Research Program Report 74. Transportation Research
    Board. June 2002. pp. 26-31.
•   Freedgood, J. et al. Cost of Community Services Studies:
    Making the Case for Conservation. American Farmland
    Trust. August 2002. pp. 55-60. http://www.farmlandinfo.
    org/farmland_search/index.cfm?artideID=284i5&functio
    n=article_view.
•   Livingston, A. et al. The Costs of Sprawl: Fiscal, Environmen-
    tal, and Quality of Life Impacts of Low-Density Development
    in the Denver Region. Environment Colorado. March 2003.
    pp. 24-29. http://www.environmentcolorado.org/envco-
    growth.asp?id2=9356.
•   Tischler, P. Analyzing the Fiscal Impacts of Development.
    Management Information Service Report No.  20. March
    1988. pp. 54-56.
•   American Farmland Trust. Saving American Farmland:
    What Works. May 1997. pp. 43-47. http://www.farmland-
    info.org/farmland_preservation_literature/index.
    cfm?function=article_view&articlel D=2 93 84.
•   Bowers, D. "Achieving  Sensible Agricultural Zoning
    to Protect PDR Investment." Presented at "Protecting
    Farmland at the Fringe." September 2001. http://www.
    farmlandinfo.org/documents/2952o/Achieving_Sensible_
    Agricultural_Zoning_full_presentation.pdf.
•   County of Marin,  California. "Agricultural Element - Ex-
    ecutive Summary." Marin Countywide Plan. http://www.
    co.marin.ca.us/depts/cd/main/comdev/advance/cwp/
    ag.cfm. Accessed August n, 2009.
•   County of Marin,  California. 2007 Marin Countywide Plan.
    2007. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/fm/
    TOC.cfm. Accessed August n, 2009.
                                    November 2009 - Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes

-------