DRAFT - September 2009
ESSENTIAL SMART GROWTH
FIXES FOR URBAN AND
SUBURBAN ZONING CODES
^\ \^V^~ ESJSmM*T^^\^v*r^T'
United States Environmental Protection Agency
with
ICF International
Charlier Associates, Inc.
Clarion Associates
Code Studio
Dover, Kohl & Partners
Farr Associates
Van Meter Williams Pollack
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
ESSENTIAL SMART GROWTH FIXES FOR
URBAN AND SUBURBAN ZONING CODES
Acknowledgements 3
1. Allow or require mixed-use zones 6
2. Use urban dimensions in urban places 9
3. Rein in and reform the use of planned unit
developments (PUDs) 12
4. Fix parking requirements 16
5. Increase density and intensity in town and city centers. 21
6. Modernize street standards 25
7. Enact standards that foster walkable places 31
8. Designate and support preferred growth areas and
development sites 35
9. Manage stormwater with green infrastructure 39
10. Adopt smart annexation policies 43
11. Avoid the "Devil's Density" 47
Image Credits 52
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Principal author:
Kevin Nelson, AICP, US EPA
Contributors and reviewers from US EPA:
John Frece
Abby Hall
Lynn Richards
Megan Susman
Participants in January 2008 and October 2008 workshops:
US EPA:
Geoff Anderson
Kevin Nelson
liana Preuss
Lynn Richards
Tim Torma
ICFInternational Team:
Jim Charlier, Charlier Associates
Amy Doll, ICF International
Victor Dover, Dover, Kohl & Partners
Chris Duerksen, Clarion Associates
Lee Einsweiler, Code Studio
Doug Farr, Farr Associates
Margaret Flippen, Dover, Kohl & Partners
Leslie Oberholtzer, Farr Associates
Will Schroeer, ICF International
Rick Williams, Van Meter Williams Pollack
Center for Planning Excellence (host of January 2008 workshop)
Elizabeth "Boo" Thomas
Camille Manning-Broome
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
ESSENTIAL SMART GROWTH FIXES FOR URBAN AND
SUBURBAN ZONING CODES
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 seeking more cost-
effective strategies to install or maintain
infrastructure, 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 opportunity 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
development 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 communities. 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.
Smart growth creates lively walkable places that bring
businesses to the street.
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
"essential fixes" that will help them get the
smarter, more environmentally responsible, and
sustainable communities they want.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 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
information 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
development regulations. Given the effort and
political will that is necessary 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 parking 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 creating
incentives for smart growth development or
creating overlay zones and mixed-use
districts.
• Wholesale Changes: Code suggestions in
this category assume the local government
wants to create a new regulatory 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 wholesale 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 barriers 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 continually revise, update, and
expand the information provided here. Please
send comments, feedback, or suggestions to the
EPA project manager, Kevin Nelson, AICP, at
nelson.kevinigiepa.gov or 202-566-2835.
1 The panel met in January and October 2008. See the
Acknowledgements for a list of participants.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
1
Allow or require mixed-use zone
Introduction
A common problem with the
conventional Euclidean zoning 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 "noxious"
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
efforts to promote alternative modes of
transportation and create lively urban places.
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 various 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
Rockville Town Center in Maryland contains a vibrant mixture of
offices, residences, retail and gathering space for people to enjoy.
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 horizontal 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 walking, bicycling, and public
transit, as well as driving.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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.
Mixed land use can integrate offices, retail and
residences so that vehicular trips can be minimized.
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 appropriate 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 discretionary 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.
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 transitions to adjacent, lower-
density uses. Consider architectural, design,
open space, operational, and other categories
of transitional standards.
• Tailor development standards (such as
parking, open space, and landscaping
regulations) for mixed-use developments so
as not to create unintended hurdles for this
preferred development form. For example,
typical parking requirements often do not
reflect the reduced need for parking typical
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 requiring more vertically
mixed uses than the market can support.
Horizontal mixed-use districts can allow the
market to determine the appropriate mix of
uses. Establish 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 Policies for
Implementation. 2002. EPA231-R-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/P
ublications/Transportline/September2004/Ce
lebrationTrafficStudy.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/svstems/s
m/los/pdfs/MMTDregs.pdf
Oregon Transportation and Growth
Management Program. Commercial and
Mixed-Use Development Code Handbook.
October 2001. pp. 33-38.
http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publicatio
ns/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/smartgrow
th/pdf/section41 .pdf.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.
SmartCode, Version 9.2. February 2009.
http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smartfiles
v9 2.html.
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed
Use Development Design Manual. March
2004. pp.56-64.
http://permits. springsgov.com/units/planning
/Currentproj/CompPlan/MixedUseDev/IV-
%20E.pdf.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
2
USE URBAN DIMENSIONS IN URBAN PLACES
Introduction
Conventional zoning codes are
typically replete with various
dimensional standards that govern
a range of topics, including
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
areas), 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 standards can also
improve connectivity enhanced site planning and
design. (See Essential Fixes Nos. 4 and 6 for
street- and parking-related dimensional
standards.)
Response to the Problem
Cities across the country have been built based
on the availability of land and proximity to jobs
and amenities. Dimensional 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 neighborhood is achieved
through design and direction from codes and
ordinances. A principal way of creating this type
of place is through modifications to the
This street in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, DC
exhibits a mature development of a city street.
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 walkable 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
• 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.
o For residential development, relevant
changes could include lot width and area
changes, smaller yards, increased lot or
building coverage for smaller lots,
increased height, and increased density.
o 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., enable small
lots and limited buffer yards between
homes).
Establish or reduce block lengths or
perimeters to produce better connections and
increase walkability.
Adopt context-based or neighborhood-based
dimensional standards that replicate
existing, appealing, compact neighborhood
patterns (e.g., narrow street width, sidewalks
wide enough for safe and comfortable
walking).
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.
• Revise the codes for existing districts to
encourage neighborhood redevelopment by
applying new dimensional standards such as
smaller lot requirements.
• Create districts for new compact building
and development types that are not currently
found in your community or neighborhood.
(See the discussion of mixed use in Essential
Fix No. 1.)
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 calibrate and adopt a form-based
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
10
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
code to create an option for additional
compact, walkable neighborhoods.
Practice Pointers
• Where significant change in dimensional
standards is proposed, create a computer
model, preferably in 3-D (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
neighborhoods.
• 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 approaches.
(See Essential Fix No. 9.)
Examples and References
• Oregon Transportation and Growth
Management Program. Commercial and
Mixed-Use Development Code Handbook.
October 2001. pp. 40-43.
http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publicatio
ns/commmixedusecode.pdf
• Freidman, S.B. and American Planning
Association. Planning 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%20Comparison%20Workshops/Chapte
r%205/Side-bv-
side%20Comparision%20Ch%205-
%20Part%20One.pdf. Accessed August 12,
2009.
• City of Durham, North Carolina. Durham
City-County Unified Development
Ordinance, http://www.durhamnc.gov/udo.
Accessed August 12, 2009.
• City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed
Use Development Design Manual, pp. 56-
64. March 2004.
http://permits. springsgov.com/units/planning
/Currentproj/CompPlan/MixedUseDev/IV-
%20E.pdf.
• U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for
Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND).
http://www.usgbc.org/leed/nd. Accessed
May 15, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
11
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
3
REIN IN AND REFORM THE USE OF PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS)
Introduction
The inflexibility of Euclidean
single-use zone districts,
inappropriate development
and dimensional standards,
and Byzantine approval
processes have given rise to
the use of negotiated
developments in many
communities. These
negotiated developments
usually take the form of
planned unit developments
(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
additional open space, recreational facilities,
better design, and contributions to infrastructure.
PUDs, which spread rapidly after the concept
was introduced in the 1960s, are attractive
because they are often simpler and quicker than
seeking multiple amendments and variances to
an outdated zoning code.
Originally, PUDs were conceived of and used to
allow flexibility 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 zoning
regulations would allow. Sea Ranch in Northern
California was a model of PUD, using attractive
design to better integrate with the natural
environment. Many of the initial Traditional
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.
Neighborhood Developments (TNDs) were
approved 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 appropriate 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
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
12
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 communities, 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 development 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 development
standards and other requirements.
Arterial Blvd.
Adjacent
Neighborhood
Riparian
Corridor
'•^UVt
The drawing of the Belmar neighborhood shows how the development fits within the context of
neighboring uses.
2 Duerksen, C. "Rural Smart Growth Zoning Code
Tools." American Planning Association National
Conference, April 28, 2009.
3 Ibid.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
13
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
• The planning process becomes a project-by-
project process rather than a comprehensive
development review, and more of a political
process than an evaluation of planning
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 waiving key design
and environmental standards.
Communities are attempting to get out in front
of PUD proposals by creating PUD zoning
regulations or design guidelines. 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, regulations,
and design guidelines are then used in
conjunction with PUD zoning to provide clearer
direction while allowing the desired design
flexibility.
Expected Benefits
• Increased certainty and predictability in the
development review process while still
allowing appropriate design flexibility.
• Setting the basic goals and fundamental
standards for an area's development prior to
a specific development proposal:
o Creates an efficient design and review
process and requires less staff time to
administer the development overtime.
o Adheres to community growth visions
and goals as established in
comprehensive plans and gives the
development sector clear direction on
the quality, character, and fundamental
elements the community wishes to see
in any proposal.
o 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 parcels. (See Essential
Fix No. 2.)
• Create standards for PUD (e.g., apply
Traditional Neighborhood 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 minimum 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
comprehensive plans and zoning codes. This
may require communities 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
14
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Complement these plans with accompanying
zoning.
• 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
development 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 community
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 Implementation Tools." Center for
Land Use Education. November 2005.
ftp: //ftp. wi. gov/D O A/public/comprehensive
plans/ImplementationToolkit/Documents/PU
D.pdf.
• New York State Legislative Commission on
Rural Resources. A Guide to Planned Unit
Development. State of New York. Fall 2005.
pp. 4-8.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/PUD 1 .p
df.
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/doc
uments/dc-ch IQO.pdf Accessed August 12,
2009.
City of Westminster, Colorado. Design
Guidelines for Traditional Mixed Use
Neighborhood Developments. April 2006.
pp. 12-18.
http://www.ci.westminster.co.us/files/tmund.
rjdf
City of Mountain View, California. "Precise
Plans."
http: //www.mountainview. gov/city_hall/com
munitv development/planning/plans regulat
ions and guidelines/precise_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/gatewa
y.asp?pid=14641&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/1999/BC99
0208.HTM. Accessed July 10, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
15
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
4
FIX PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
The parking standards found in
many conventional zoning codes
can be a significant barrier to
lively, mixed-use developments
and activity centers, 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 attractive streetscape.
Such regulations fail to recognize
the difference between parking
demand in various contexts.
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 impossible 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 development 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 working to create more effective parking
management systems for at least a couple of
Movie Theater
6pm
9pm
6am 9am 12pm 3pm
Time of Day
Codes and regulations should enable adjacent uses to share
parking as evidences by the demand or overlap in this chart.
12am
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 parking 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 settings and
are adaptable to changes overtime.
• 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
16
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 attract ridership.
They take into account that parking is
inherently expensive. Surface parking
consumes valuable land, removing it from
productive use. Structured parking incurs
capital costs that can exceed $20,000 per
space,4 thereby subtracting capital funds
from development. Successful parking
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.
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 transit. In mixed-use
settings with good pedestrian environments,
such regulations overestimate parking
demand and have a self-fulfilling effect by
making mixed-use development 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 private parking on his or her parcel
is akin to requiring each landowner to drill
his or her own water well. Modern parking
ordinances allow parking minimums to be
met off site, although they may require that
u
ALLEY
RESIDENTIAL
SHARED PARKING
Commercial & Residential Guest
DEDICATED PARKING
•». _ Residential
Parking can be accommodated through a variety of means including mixed use parking structures.
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
4 U.S. EPA. Parking Spaces / Community Places:
Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth
Solutions. February 2006. EPA 231-K-06-001. p. 9.
the parking location be within a maximum
600- to 1,000-foot distance from the
development. These could be private joint
parking facilities 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 property taxes. In some settings, it
is feasible to "unbundle" parking from
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
17
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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
developer to pay a set fee in lieu (FIL) of
providing parking supply 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
requirements assume that each business has
its own separate parking supply and that it
must be large enough to accommodate 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
weekends, restaurants in the evening. Shared
parking provisions allow developers to
reduce parking supply requirements 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 spaces—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
attractive because it reduces parking demand
while improving 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 alternative 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
18
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
• Develop residential parking permit
provisions to help protect neighborhoods
affected by overflow parking resulting 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 selling
"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 parking 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
section 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 ordinance. Some specific revisions
might include:
o Revise the tables of parking supply
minimums, reducing them wherever
possible to reflect context, transportation
options, and land use mix.
o 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.
o Create parking overlay districts for
downtowns and mixed-use centers, and
write provisions for future additional
overlay districts.
o Unbundle parking from residential
development in districts with higher
densities and a mix of uses.
o Allow off-site parking in dense retail
districts and set limits for its distance
from development sites.
o Develop provisions to govern joint
parking (i.e., parking allowed through
contracts or leases with other businesses
or landowners) to ensure that parking
supply commitments made in
connection with development approval
are honored and maintained over time.
o 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 enforcement of parking time limits
by acquiring hand-held computers for
issuing tickets (replacing a system of
chalking tires). Revise the parking overtime
ordinance to provide 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
19
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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
lotto be constructed 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 Jurisdictions: Best
Practices. April 2007. pp. 14-18.
http: //www.mtc. ca. gov/planning/smart grow
th/parking studv/April07/bestpractice 0423
07.pdf.
U.S. EPA. Parking Spaces / Community
Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart
Growth Solutions. February 2006. EPA 231-
K-06-001.
http ://www.epa. gov/smartgrowth/parking .ht
m.
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/Fin
al%20Parking%20Paoer.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 Parking 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%20Parki
ng%20Studv/NW%20Connecticut%20Parki
ng%20Studv%20Phase%202.pdf.
Forinash, C. et al. "Smart Growth
Alternatives to Minimum Parking
Requirements." Proceedings from the 2nd
Urban Street Symposium. July 28-30, 2003.
http://www.urbanstreet.info/.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "Parking
Maximums." TDMEncyclopedia.
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm28 .htm# Toe 12
8220478. Accessed April 12, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
20
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
5
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 research5 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.
Much of what people dislike about density is in
reality the result of development patterns that
help to increase congestion 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 developments. Fear
of lower property values is often an underlying
concern of residents when discussing higher
density developments.
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
5 U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources Through
Higher-Density Development. 2006. EPA 231-R-06-
001.
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 appealing 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 ensure that higher density
projects are compatible with existing
neighborhoods will help respond to these
concerns.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
21
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Response to the Problem
The concept of density requires ample
discussion and education 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 increased
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 requirements.
Lastly, communities should focus much of their
higher density where it can be served
conveniently by bus or rail transit, 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 zoning designations,
or modifying zoning to allow greater density in
existing districts. Other strategies include
creating new compatibility standards and design
guidelines to improve transitions 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 efficient
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 affordable housing,
particularly in areas that have high land
values and scarce development sites.
• More effective transit service. In lower
density neighborhoods, 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 customers who can walk or bike
from surrounding neighborhoods.
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 housing policies and goals.
• Designate locations for higher density
development centers in comprehensive
plans.
• Create activity center districts with higher
densities, increased heights and FAR, and
reduced parking requirements. This can be
done by creating specific zones, modifying
existing zones, or creating a new overlay
district that allows selective modification of
existing zoning regulations in an already
zoned area without changing all of the
zoning of a parcel.
6 Dittmar, H. and Ohland, G. The New Transit Town.
2003.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
22
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
2. Major Modifications
• Tailor development standards (e.g., height
limits and FAR, parking requirements, and
open space and landscaping 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 comprehensive plans to increase
density, as opposed to using case-by-case
re zoning.
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 development.
• Establish minimum densities or intensities in
community or regional mixed-use centers
and transit-oriented developments.
• Do not count structured parking towards
FAR, if FAR is used in regulations. For
example, parking that is elevated more than
four to five feet above grade, should not be
counted towards FAR. Do not count above-
grade parking structures as FAR if they are
"wrapped" by residential development.
• Parking can be a costly component of
development. Parking 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.)
• Set parking maximums rather than
minimums to discourage 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 density projects to ensure high-
quality, attractive development.
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.
Consider offering density bonuses and
flexible zoning standards to encourage
construction of affordable housing. Many
jurisdictions have developed density
bonuses, as well as allowable concessions or
variances for specific regulations, as an
incentive for affordable, senior, or disabled
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 surrounding neighborhoods.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
23
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Examples and References
• U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources with
Higher-Density Development. January 2006.
EPA231-R-06-001. pp. 44-51.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water_den
'.htm.
State of Georgia. "Minimum Density
Zoning." Georgia Quality Growth Toolkit.
http://www.dca. state.ga.us/intra_nonpub/Too
Ikit/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/19
98/dec98/dec9810.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/svstems/s
m/los/pdfs/MMTDregs.pdf
Oregon Transportation and Growth
Management Program. Commercial and
Mixed-Use Development Code Handbook.
October 2001. pp. 40-43.
http://egov.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publicatio
ns/commmixedusecode.pdf
City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mixed
Use Development Design Manual. March
2004.pp.56-64
http://permits.springsgov.com/units/planning
/Currentproj/CompPlan/MixedUseDev/IV-
%20E.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_value .pdf
Accessed August 27, 2009.
California Housing Law Project. "SB 1818 -
Density Bonus." Fact sheet. 2004.
http://www.housingadvocates.Org/facts/l 818
.pdf
Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking.
Planners Press, American Planning
Association. 2005. Chapter 20.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
24
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
6
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
communities. 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 neighborhoods.
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 values (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
obviously important policy considerations for
any municipality.
Street design also affects environmental factors,
including the volume of storm water 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 public 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 characteristics of networks are
This view of University Boulevard in Palo Alto, California
includes amenities for cars and bikes.
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 1920s, 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 circulation, 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
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
25
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 attentiveness of drivers. Designed properly,
these elements can reduce both accident
frequency and accident severity.
Clearly, there is a need for communities to
update their approach to planning, designing,
and building streets and street networks.
Response to the Problem
Generally, cities have addressed street design
issues through subdivision regulations rather
than zoning ordinances, although 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, personal
vehicles, and transit.
• Narrow Local Streets - Local streets (streets
Street
2 8 *
walk «
B
iff
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 collector thoroughfares should be
designed to fit the character of abutting
lands and surrounding neighborhoods and
should not be overly wide or designed to
encourage inappropriate 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 designed 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 reducing 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
Ground
* r *
parking vehicular vehicular parking tree lawn
lar"f
62" R.O.W.
M Curb to Curb
This street sections show the typical array of uses for a right of way including pedestrians
automobiles.
and
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
26
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
visible element of a system of green
infrastructure that is incorporated into the
community.
• On-Street Parking - On-street parking is not
only a convenient 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.
Many communities, along with state
departments of transportation, 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 stormwater 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 congestion.
• Improved emergency response and
emergency evacuation capability.
• Reduced street maintenance costs.
• Allowing people to drive less with no
reduction in mobility.
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 combination 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 universal design criteria for
pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalks, 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 responsibility 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 arterials and collectors as streets are
built and as existing streets undergo major
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
27
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 connectivity
standards.
• Begin developing and testing stormwater
management designs such as rain gardens,
bio-swales, and other techniques 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 necessary 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 "multimodal corridor" designation.
This can also be handled as an overlay
requirement without changing the
underlying 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 implementation of
complete streets requirements
communitywide.
• 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 below should be based
on an adopted multimodal transportation
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
commercial 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
28
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 concerns
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 applies 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 benefits 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 Association. May 2003. pp. 12-15.
http://www.planning.org/apastore/search/def
ault.aspx?p=2426
• Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing
Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable
Communities: An ITE Proposed
Recommended Practice. May 2005.
http://www.ite.org/emodules/scriptcontent/or
ders/ProductDetail.cfm?pc=RP-036. (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/engineering/gmardst
ds/UrbanSt.htm. Accessed June 25, 2009.
City of Charlotte, North Carolina. Urban
Street Design Guidelines. October 2007.
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Tran
sportation/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/s
m/los/pdfs/MMTDregs.pdf
National Complete Streets Coalition.
http://www.completestreets.org.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. Street Design
Guidelines. July 2007.
http://www.roanokeva.gov/85256A8D0062
AF37/CurrentBaseLink/7C223BF47CE3725
6852575F2006CEDF8/$File/STREET DBS
IGN GUIDELINES.pdf. Accessed June 14,
2009.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.
SmartCode, Version 9.2. February 2009.
http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smartfiles
v9 2.html.
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. Guidelines for
Geometric Design of Very Low-Volume
Local Roads (ADT<400). 1st Edition. June
2001.
https://bookstore .transportation.org/imagevi
ew.aspx?id=450&DB=3.
Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders.
Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines: An
Oregon Guide for Reducing Street Widths.
Oregon Transportation and Growth
Management Program. November 2000.
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publicatio
ns/neighstreet.pdf
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
29
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Mozer, D. "Planning: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Friendly Land Use Codes." International
Bicycle Fund. April 2007.
http://www.ibike.org/engineering/landuse.ht
m. 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/b
v.web/id=26335.
City of Boulder, Colorado. "Multimodal
Corridors." April 2006.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?
option=com content&task=view&id=3 5 5 &I
temid=1624. Accessed June 12, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
30
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
7
ENACT STANDARDS TO FOSTER WALKABLE
PLACES
Introduction
In smart growth communities, people
are able to walk comfortably 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 imposing 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 pedestrian realm is
treated as an afterthought—the space
left over between the edge of the
street and the buildings and parking
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 facilities 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.
Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado shows the street view of how
wide sidewalks can contribute to a pleasant walkable experience.
In addition to guiding the planning and design
decisions for municipal facilities, these design
requirements may be applied to private projects
in part through the zoning approval process and
in part through subdivision regulations. In some
communities, 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, communities 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).
7 Level of service is a measure of effectiveness by
which traffic engineers determine the quality of
service of elements of transportation.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
31
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Expected Benefits
• 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
conditions).
• 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.
This fountain and plaza located at the entrance of a
bookstore act as a central meeting and gathering
place in Bethesda Row.
8 Criteria pollutants are monoxide, lead, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, paniculate matter, and sulfur dioxide
and are regulated by EPA under the Clean Air Act.
Steps to Implementation
1. Modest Adjustments
• Develop or revise street and street crossing
design standards to improve pedestrian
safety, convenience, and comfort, 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 database 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 a
zoning overlay district to make targeted
changes to the underlying zoning categories
to reallocate street cross sections, regulate
building setbacks, and so forth. Prioritize
capital improvement funding to pedestrian
facility needs in the zoning overlay district.
Build upon success by designating
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
pedestrian connectivity within developments
and with adjacent developments.
• Adopt pedestrian environment standards for
mixed-use districts to improve pedestrian
safety, comfort, and convenience, including
requirements for on-street parking, build-to
lines, minimum facade transparency,
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
32
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
building entrance 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 circulation 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 developments.
• Require walkways in parking lots larger than
1 acre or 200 feet wide, linking perimeter
sidewalks to primary building entrances.
Practice Pointers
• Communities often adopt plans calling for
the entire community 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 construction of any new streets with
inadequate provisions for pedestrians. Public
investment to retrofit and improve
sidewalks, crosswalks, grade separations,
and other facilities should go initially to
school zones and routes, downtowns 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 pedestrian 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 requirements 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 regulatory
requirements, which are expanded and
updated frequently.
Examples and References
• Florida Department of Transportation.
Multimodal Transportation Districts and
Areawide Quality of Service Handbook.
November 2003. p. 26.
http: //www. dot. state. fl .us/planning/systems/s
m/los/pdfs/MMTDQOS.pdf
• National Complete Streets Coalition.
http ://www.completestreets .org.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
33
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Dixon, L. "Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-
Service Performance Measures and
Standards for Congestion Management
Systems." Transportation Research Record
1538. 1996.
http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/
1538-001.PDF.
Landis, B. et al. Modeling the Roadside
Walking Environment, A Pedestrian Level of
Service. Transportation Research Board
Paper No. 01-0511.2001.
http: //www. dot. state. fl .us/planning/svstems/s
m/los/pdfs/pedlos.pdf
U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for
Neighborhood Development Rating System
Credit for Walkable Streets (Neighborhood
Pattern and Design, Credit 7, in pilot
version).
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx7C
MSPageID=148. Accessed June 20, 2009.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company.
SmartCode, Version 9.2. February 2009.
http://www.smartcodecentral.com/smartfiles
v9 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_p
rimer.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. Designing
Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part I of II:
Review of Existing Guidelines and
Practices. 1999.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidew
alks/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/sidew
alk2/index.htm.
City of Redmond, Washington. "Pedestrian
Program Plan." Transportation Master Plan.
November 2005.
http://www.redmond.gov/connectingredmon
d/policiesplans/tmpproj ectdocs. 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/stac 1528 .html
Accessed May 5, 2009.
Cleveland Neighborhood Development
Coalition. Pedestrian Retail Overlay (PRO)
District, http://www.cndc2.org/prod.html.
Accessed May 5, 2009.
Leaf, W.A. and Preusser, D.F. "Literature
Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and
Pedestrian Injuries." U.S. Department of
Transportation. DOTHS 809 021. October
1999.
http: //www.nhtsa. dot. gov/people/injury/re se
arch/pub/hs809012.html.
Federal Highway Administration "Safe
Routes to School: Program Legislation -
SAFETEA-LU, Sec. 1404."
http://safetv.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/overvie
w/legislation.cfm#secl404. Accessed May
5, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
34
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
8
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 specific 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
benefits. It encourages and facilitates
redevelopment and infill, supports transit,
and guides new development to
appropriate areas with ready access to
existing infrastructure. Local governments
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.
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
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.
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
effective on behalf of current residents and
thoughtful 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
35
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 analysis 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 council.
• Cost-effective provision of infrastructure.
Focusing on and prioritizing infill
development will use existing infrastructure
efficiently.
• Preservation of open space and natural
resources. Focusing on infill development
reduces pressure to expand on a
community's periphery or to develop in
areas with sensitive habitat or open space.
Steps to Implementation
(Note: Steps may be applied differently in infill
versus greenfield locations.)
1. Modest Adjustments
• Identify and map preferred growth areas in a
comprehensive 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
This rendering of Santa Clara, California illustrates how the city has designated preferred
growth areas to keep distinctive places intact.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
36
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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.
• 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, including 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
annexation 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 centers) 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
overtime.
• It is also critical to strategically manage the
phasing of growth areas. Each town or city
needs to find the appropriate strategy for
holding growth areas in check until they are
prepared for the types of development that
the community envisions.
• Communities need to find ways to prioritize
development so that key projects can be
implemented earlier as catalysts. 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
Communities. Island Press. November 2007.
• Nolon, J.R. "Chapter 2: Local Land Use
Controls That Achieve Smart Growth." Well
Grounded: Using Local Land Use Authority
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
37
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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/pl
anning/long range/growth management/rur
al area concept 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. February 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/
austin matrix.pdf
State of Maryland. Smart Growth Priority
Funding Areas Act of 1997.
http: //www.mdp. state .md .us/fundingact.htm.
Accessed April 22, 2009.
City of Boulder, Colorado. Boulder's Open
Space & Mountain Parks: A History.
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?
option=com content&task=view&id= 1167
&Itemid=71. Accessed May 12, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
38
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
9
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
pollutants 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 protection.
Communities must also look beyond the site
scale and consider the impacts of where and how
development occurs across neighborhoods and
watersheds.
This picture from the High Point neighborhood of Seattle
illustrates site level green infrastructure practices such as
landscaped swales to capture runoff.
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 compact, 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
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
39
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 environmental, community,
and economic benefits. Local governments can
incorporate green infrastructure by adopting
plans, removing barriers, enacting regulations,
and creating incentives for green infrastructure
on both public lands and private property.
Certain local policies, such as landscaping and
parking 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 essential
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
This abandoned mall, Pompano Fashion Square in
Pompano Beach, Florida, is a good example of a
parking lot that could be repurposed for green
infrastructure.
harvesting rainwater for irrigation can be an
effective green infrastructure 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
alternatives in zoning and subdivision
regulations.
• Complete the EPA Water Quality Scorecard.
The tool gives local governments an idea of
the range of green infrastructure 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.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
40
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
• 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
infrastructure 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 management requirements for
preservation of trees and open space, which
help to decrease impervious surfaces and
allow for stormwater infiltration.
• Amend stormwater management regulations
and development 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 management strategies and
coordinate future land use and development
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 resources 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 opposed to
greenfield development. Recognize that
impervious 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
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
41
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
approaches like pervious pavement and
green roofs.
• Work with key staff from local agencies
such as transportation, 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 municipa
1 scorecard.pdf
• U.S. EPA. Green Infrastructure Municipal
Handbook, (series of publications)
http: //cfpub. epa. gov/npdes/greeninfrastructu
re/munichandbook .cfm.
• U.S. EPA. StormwaterManagement
Handbook: Implementing Green
Infrastructure in Northern Kentucky
Communities. May 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sgia com
munitie s .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/sourcewa
ter.htm. Accessed July 22, 2009.
• U.S. EPA. "Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plans for Construction Activities."
http: //cfpub .epa. gov/npdes/stormwater/swpp
p.cfm. Accessed July 22, 2009.
U.S. EPA. Protecting Water Resources with
Higher-Density Development. January 2006.
EPA231-R-06-001. pp. 23-29.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/water den
sity.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.cf
m?c=35122&a=55769. Accessed June 22,
2009.
Santa Clara Valley (California) Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
Operations and Maintenance of Treatment
BMPs. http: //www. scvurppp-
w2k.com/om_workproduct_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.
EPA841-F-07-006.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07.
City of New York. "Water." PlaNYC.
http: //www.ny c. gov/html/planyc203 0/html/p
Ian/water.shtml. Accessed May 19, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
42
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
10
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 planning 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 annex lands. One
of the most important forces driving
annexation 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 annex 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,
development, 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 comprehensive planning
process and to ensure that annexations are
This urban growth boundary shows a stark contrast between
the developed and undeveloped areas of this community.
consistent with adopted comprehensive
plans;
• Developing intergovernmental processes
and agreements—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 regions may also need to
work together to rationalize their local taxation
systems, including consideration of revenue
sharing among jurisdictions.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
43
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
Expected Benefits
• Well-planned, contiguous municipal
expansion that benefits 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 competition 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
accommodates population growth and
provides the tax base required to meet the
community's objectives.
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 comprehensive 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 identification 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
connectivity standards in any annexed areas,
as well as minimum external connectivity
with existing and future neighborhoods.
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.
• 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" annexations.9
• Develop and adopt joint infrastructure
standards (e.g., water, sanitary sewer,
9 Flagpole annexations are connected to a
municipality through a narrow strip of land.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
44
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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
municipalities. This coordination
discourages landowners or developers 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.
The Urban Development Boundary in Miami-
Bade County, Florida, illustrates the division
between land intended for development and
area meant to be preserved.
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
comprehensive plan. Include provisions for
identifying areas of potential annexation and
provisions for zoning, infrastructure, lands
of special concern, and street extensions,
similar to the four measures described under
Mode st Adj ustments.
• 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 infrastructure and services,
and the approval processes of the affected
jurisdictions.
• Develop a regional compact or
intergovernmental agreement for revenue
sharing to reduce or eliminate the pressure
to annex land for municipal budget growth.
Practice Pointers
• Annexation law and policy are among the
most controversial aspects of growth
management. Many states are changing the
laws governing the authority of
municipalities 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 infrastructure 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 facilities and services. An
important step in addressing annexation
policy issues is to work—ideally in
cooperation with other area governments—
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
45
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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
commercial projects outside municipal
areas.
Examples and References
• California Association of Local Agency
Formation Commission.
http: //www.calafco. org.
• Local Agency Formation Commission of
Monterey County, California. "Sphere of
Influence Policies and Criteria." October
2006.
http://000sweb.co.monterev.ca.us/lafco/polic
y.htm.
• Denver Regional Council of Governments.
"Mile High Compact." August 2000.
http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm ?page=Mile
HighCompact. 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. February 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/
austin_matrix.pdf
Boulder County, Colorado.
"Intergovernmental Agreements."
http://www.bouldercountv.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/GM
ARdStds/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/fi
scaldis.pdf
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
46
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
11
AVOID THE "DEVIL'S DENSITY"
Introduction
"Devil's Density" is a term
that describes development on
the periphery of urban areas,
suburbs, and small towns that
is not dense enough to support
mixed land uses or transit or
to create other efficiencies
associated with urban
development patterns, such as
cost-efficient infrastructure.
At the same time, these areas
are often too dense for rural
areas to maintain truly rural
development patterns. Rural
development patterns
typically:
• Are supported by limited
infrastructure (relying, for
instance, on gravel roads , , , , , , , , «
' - , This aerial from suburban Dallas shows how the Devil s Density
and septic systems); js buMt out on the edge of the town at residential density that is not
efficient with more compact development patterns.
• Produce cost savings for
residents and
municipalities because they use fewer
government services; and
• Preserve large tracts of open space and
agricultural lands.
The concept is most relevant to exurban
development—areas outside of jurisdictional
boundaries of cities and towns, but still
considered part of the developed edge. The
Devil's Density is approximately 2 to 4 housing
units per 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
only allow densities that fall within the Devil's
Density range. This can also change based on
regional differences. For instance, Western states
will have a different threshold than those in the
southeast.
This low-density development pattern has been
one of the fastest 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 communities' desire to
grow. Developers have also found such rural
areas to be the "path of least resistance" to their
projects. 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 extensive rights to large landowners,
ranchers, and farmers to develop 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,
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
47
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
zoned for this Devil's Density for residential
development.
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 frequently 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 !/2-acre to
5-acre range. The difficulties with these
densities include:
• Expensive infrastructure to both provide and
maintain to serve a minimal number of
units;
• Reliance on septic systems, which have a
limited capacity overtime;
• A land use pattern that is difficult or
impossible to intensify 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.
The "Devil" in these densities is that they are
neither rural nor town-like in their character.
Once developed, they are difficult to change and
become more difficult to maintain over time.
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 process
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 are 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
The Devil's Density creates a development
pattern that is not sustainable on any level—
fiscally, environmentally, socially, and for public
health. Atypical example of the Devil's Density
is one unit per 2 acres. When zoning 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 improvements through increased densities
as well as other zoning changes, they can make
their neighborhoods fiscally sound and
environmentally sustainable.
Addressing the Devil's Density takes a balance
of strategies, combining those that eliminate the
types of densities so persistent at the edge of
urban/rural confluence with those that direct
unsustainable development patterns away from
these areas. This can be done through a variety
of solutions.
When expanding, communities' comprehensive
plans should zone only in 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 expansion 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 on the agricultural 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 the Devil's
Density outside these areas as ranches, orchards,
and farms are developed. These sites are
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
48
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
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 maintained for agriculture
or open space. Towns and counties will need to
tackle this issue together in a comprehensive
manner to address planning, engineering,
property ownership, and development issues.
As the concept of the Devil's Density is
relatively unknown to a broad audience, the
solutions, likewise, are still developing and are
somewhat narrow in scope. To make this clear,
both the response to the problem and the steps
for implementation are focused on the areas in
direct control of local government—areas at
periphery or the community's edge. As this
concept becomes better understood, solutions
will include a wider scope.
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.
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 habitat corridors
and maintaining viable agricultural activities
and related businesses.
• Support for downtowns and traditional
neighborhood developments, with greater
connectivity with the immediate town or
city.
• Creation of consistent and connected
patterns of development instead of leapfrog
growth, which disregards planned
boundaries.
• Minimizing the areas that are hamstrung by
limited redevelopment 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 address the
Devil's Density in peripheral and exurban
areas by redesignating density allocations.
• Amend zoning ordinances to repeal zone
districts that allow the Devil's Density at the
community's edge.
• Develop design regulations that require
connectivity and integration with adjacent
neighborhoods and create transitions to
adjacent agricultural or undeveloped areas.
2. Major Modifications
• Establish benchmarks for intended density
in comprehensive plans in rural areas (e.g.,
one unit per 80 acres in some Western
states).
• Require minimum densities in areas targeted
for growth.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
49
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
• Require cluster/conservation subdivisions at
the community's edge to transition to rural
areas. These subdivisions are for edge
conditions only, not for areas that are not
directly adjacent to the community's edge.
• Require comprehensive fiscal impact and
mitigation analysis for proposed rural
developments. Require mitigation measures
so that rural developments pay their own
way.
• Use the SmartCode to categorize and
implement the zoning regulations by
classifying an appropriate transect for these
urban-rural interface areas and adapting the
regulations for the community.
3. Wholesale Changes
• Preserve agricultural viability by zoning for
large agriculture-only districts.
• Require mandatory annexation as a
condition of development 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 enable
the annexation process to be predictable and
fair).
• Encourage joint town and county policies
that set criteria such as location or size
controls to coordinate the development 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 agriculture, the appropriate acreage
for agriculturally zoned parcels will vary.
• Consider how rules related to lot splits or
family subdivision rights chart the course for
inappropriate densities. Family
subdivisions10 are often used to get around
minimum lot size regulations.
• In the past, communities have employed the
Devil's Density 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.
Clustered subdivisions disrupt agricultural
operations.
• In certain circumstances, land trusts have
purchased conservation easements from
farmers and ranchers that prohibit
development. Selling the easement gives
landowners 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 Cooperative 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.
10 Family subdivisions contain lots that are to be
conveyed only to members of the owner's family.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
50
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farmland searc
h/index.cfm?articleID=28415&function=arti
cle_view.
Livingston, A. et al. The Costs of Sprawl:
Fiscal, Environmental, 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.farmlandinfo.org/farmland_pres
ervation literature/index.cfm?function=artic
le view&articleID=29384.
Bowers, D. "Achieving Sensible
Agricultural Zoning to Protect PDR
Investment." Presented at "Protecting
Farmland at the Fringe." September 2001.
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/295
20/Achieving_Sensible_Agricultural_Zonin
g full_presentation.pdf
County of Marin, California. "Agricultural
Element - Executive Summary."Marin
Countywide Plan.
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/cd/main/co
mdev/advance/cwp/ag .cfm. Accessed
August 11,2009.
County of Marin, California. 2007Marin
Countywide Plan. 2007.
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/f
m/TOC.cfm. Accessed August 11, 2009.
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes
51
-------
DRAFT - September 2009
IMAGE CREDITS
Cover (upper left, upper right, lower left, lower right; respectfully): Farr Associates; US EPA, US EPA,
Farr Associates
Page 4: Van Meter William Pollack
Page 6: US EPA
Page 7: Farr Associates
Page 9: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 10: US EPA
Page 12: US EPA
Page 13: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 16: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 17: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 21: US EPA
Page 23: US EPA
Page 25: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 26: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 31: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 32: US EPA
Page 35: US EPA
Page 36: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 39: US EPA
Page 40: US EPA
Page 43: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Page 45: US EPA
Page 47: US EPA
Page 49: Van Meter Williams Pollack
Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes 52
------- |