Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 April 5, 2023SpecialrFeature ' Page 1of3 Practicing Planner ~ Print Now Special Feature Form-Based Codes: Where Do We Go From Here? by Scot Siegel, AICP Jerry Weitz's article is right on the mark. It is understandable that he did not find much criticism of form- based codes in the literature. This is new territory and his is a pioneering article. Here are a few comments that I hope will lead to a fuller understanding of the issues and need for further research. When Conventional Codes Fail As indicated in the companion article by Kaizer Rangwala (Farmers Branch), conventional zoning and development codes can become a tangled mess over time. In most communities "the code" is actually an amalgamation of land-use regulations, development standards, design guidelines, and administrative procedures that have been adopted or amended over many years. These incremental code updates, or patches, typically leave a nest of regulations that, at a minimum, cause confusion, and at their worst, discourage quality development and lead to costly delays in the permit process. Like a computer hard drive that has not been properly maintained, the zoning code, weighted down by years of amendments, can unexpectedly crash. When local codes fail, the costs are passed along to property owners, applicants, staff, and, eventually, the community at large. In some cases, the code crisis is so great that it becomes a central political issue, and code reform miraculously finds its way into the budget. Fo r planners who are considering the daunting task of overhauling their code, understandably a form- based rewrite may be appealing. The relatively simple organization and graphic presentation of form- based ordinances make them attractive, easy to understand in concept, and relevant to the livability issues that local leaders care so much about. But looks can be deceiving. Permissive Versus Prescriptive Codes: Form Follows Function 1 Conventional zoning regulations generally fall into the categories of "permissive," "preventive," or "prescriptive." Where permissive standards allow something to happen (e.g., mixed-use in a neighborhood center), preventive codes try to solve past transgressions, or avoid bad things from happening again. Prescriptive codes require a specific use, development intensity, or design (form) to occur in a designated area. In Portland, Oregon, a shift toward using prescriptive, design-based codes began about 15 to 20 years ago. It coincided with the rollout of Portland's Westside Light Rail Transit (LRT) project. Area leaders, disappointed with the low-rise development that followed the earlier Eastside LRT project, wanted the Westside to exemplify smart growth. They also wanted some assurance that new development around the LRT station areas would be compatible with and protect the region's investment in light rail, so they raised densities, established density floors, and mandated pedestrian-oriented design. The neotraditional movement soon followed with landmark projects such as Orenco Station and, more recently, Villebois, a master planned community in Wilsonville along what might.become Oregon's first commuter rai l line. Those familiar with Portland will note the absence of neotraditional developments around Portland's Eastside LRT corridor until recently. In the past few years, neqtraditional developments, such as Gresham Station and the award-winning Center Commons mixed-use project have been built along the Eastside LRT under prescriptive regulations, and with a fair amount of public subsidy. In short, Portland's investment in LRT made prescriptive form-based codes politically acceptable and necessary. In areas without LRT, or where transit has been more controversial and .late in comln~ ... .suc~ as the http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/specialfeature.htm 12/19/2005 ~pecia l 1F eature Page 2of3 Clackamas Regional Center, the codes have tended to be a hybrid of permissive and prescriptive standards. w Figure 1 w Figure 2 Site Plan Acceptable Site Plan Unacceptable Traditional zoning and development ordinances can learn something from form-based codes, which use graphics extensively to show acceptable design solutions. Saving the Baby Planners might be interested in the administrative and legal problems of replacing conventional zoning wi th form-based codes, versus retrofitting existing standards. There are tradeoffs, for example, vesting issues under old versus new codes can become a legal quagmire when land-use tables change or old procedures (e.g., PUD, contract zoning, etc.) go away. I am not aware of any established city that has replaced its entire zoning code with a form-based code that applies across the entire "transect" of the community. Form-based codes, with their site-specific land use and design standards, and their self- contained procedures can work nicely for a new master planned community, or a large-scale redevelopment, but what about the other 90 percent of the town? The problem of applying form-based standards to built-up areas, versus greenfields or teardown redevelopment areas, has become a hot button issue in some communities. The city of Corvallis, Oregon (population 55,000), a university town in the agricultural heartland of Oregon's Willamette Valley, for example, completed a comprehensive code update a few years ago. It made many good revisions, including the adoption of new mixed-use zones and improvements to the downtown zone. These changes have been embraced by the community and the positive results are evident in new development projects in and near the city's center. However, the planners got sideways when they tried to impose some form- based regulations on new commercial development outside these specialized areas. The main issue in Corvallis, which is still being litigated after four years, is related to the city's limitations on commercial footprint size and associated FAR requirements. This was obviously a lightning rod for the retail community. Now the good news ... Most of the be st new codes are actually hybrids, integrating some form-based provisions (e.g., special districts or overlays for specific plan areas) with tried-and-true, conventional zoning that has been reformed and streamlined. These new "smart" codes remove regulatory obstacles to mixed-use, establish clear and objective standards for pedestrian-friendly design, and provide incentives (e.g., fast-track reviews) for developments that meet the basic standards. The codes also offer an alternate process, allowing for a more flexible (albeit slower), discretionary review of applications. In short, these smart codes make it easier to do the right things. Fo r example, as Weitz mentions in his article, some communities provide form-based codes as an option, or a parallel track, in addition to existing zoning and subdivision regulations. By carefully drafting clear and objective design (form-based) standards (for instance, see Figures 1 through 4) that can be administered by staff with fewer public hearings, or no hearing at all, a city can streamline the process and make it more attractive to developers. If a developer does not want to follow the prescriptive, form- based code, then he or she would have the option of applying the conventional (less predictable) discretionary design review or planned development process with more public involvement. http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/specialfeature.htm 12/19/2005 $ pecial •Feature Figure 3 Multifamily Elevation Acceptable El Figure 4 Commercial storefront with housing Both form-based codes and traditional zoning can provide incentives to encourage desired development, as in this example from Oregon's Model Development Code for Small Cities, Second Edition. (Siegel Planning Services LLC) Code excerpt with commercial storefront Page 3of3 By carefully combining form-based standards with traditional zoning controls, communities can direct new development and provide flexibility for existing uses and redevelopment. A Word on Project Management ... The first step in any code update is to review or audit the community's existing regulations with stakeholder input. The review should focus on policy objectives, administrative practicality, and market delivery issues. Design is only part of that review. The code's purpose, processes, structure, and anticipated format should all be well understood and accepted in concept before drafting new regulations. Take Your Time and Do It Right the First Time In conclusion, planners contemplating a code update should take the time to consider all available tools. If seeking a consultant, there are planning practitioners who specialize in making codes work better and who are knowledgeable on a wide range of code drafting techniques. Communities should research their options before soliciting consultant proposals. They should seek consultants with experience in zoning, land-use administration, building and site design, development, and public involvement. Planning directors should ask prospective contractors how they would work with them in evaluating the various options and crafting an approach that best suits the community. After all, form still follows function. Scot Siegel, AICP, is principal with Siegel Planning Services LLC, a Portland, Oregon-based land-use consulting firm specializing in city and regional planning, code development, and planning management. He was the consultant project manager for the City of Tempe, Arizona, Regulatory Rewrite, and he serves as prime consultant to the State of Oregon's Transportation and Growth Management Code Assistance Program. Note 1. The dictum form follows function was coined by the American architect Louis Sullivan in his article "The Ta ll Office Building Artistically Considered" published in 1896. Images Graphics by Siegel Planning Services LLC ©Copyright 2005 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/specialfeature.htm 12/19/2005 f lanning Essentials Page 1of4 Practicing p· anner § Print Now Planning Essentials Form-based Code: The Farmers Branch Experience by Kaizer Rangwala, AICP Farmers Branch, Texas, is nestled at the demographic center of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The metropolitan region is estimated to double its population by 2030. For Farmers Branch, a "no growth" scenario was not a practical option. The fundamental question was: "How to grow?" This article describes how Farmers Branch found it needed a form-based code to replace its archaic conventional zoning code in order to implement a light rail station area master plan. Some of the techniques used in the process, and the lessons learned, should be of interest to planners in other communities considering form-based codes. The long -awaited Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail station serving Farmers Branch is scheduled to be in operation by 2010. For more than two decades the return of rail service has been recognized by the community as an opportunity for an infusion of new growth in the oldest area of the city. The city recently adopted a master plan for the station area where the new growth is expected. The citizen- endorsed vision for the station area is one of a mixed-use, urban-style neighborhood that blends retail uses, restaurants, personal and professional services, offices, and housing in an environment that emphasizes walkable public spaces. Just as the master plan articulated the community's vision for the area, it also acknowledged the general steps necessary to see the vision become a reality. One of the essential actions that must be taken is the establishment of strong development regulations that are consistent with the community's vision. During the master planning exercise, the city suspected that existing zoning codes were not consistent with the planning principles adopted and would likely have to be revised. The zoning code was adopted in 1969. Since 1969, the code had been patched with more than 500 amendments, turning into a complex document that is understood by only a handful of people. Codes are incredibly important in building good neighborhoods. And because neighborhoods have lasting value, there is a need to invest time and resources in developing them right. Therefore, city planners decided to ask, listen, and evaluate the various options. Before concluding that a form-based code was the best option, the city engaged in a series of events that helped inform citizens, city planners, and decision makers. Codes Forum Before writing a new development code, the city wanted to have a spirited discussion on all available options and learn from the experiences and insight of experts from neighboring cities and planning agencies. For any planning project, it is customary to call neighboring cities and inquire about their efforts on similar projects. Instead of talking to the experts over the phone, the city invited the experts to participate in a codes forum. Various options for regulating development were discussed. Answers were sought for questions such as: What key regulations are important to the urban setting and creation of a public realm? What incentives can the code offer? How can one .balance flexibility and predictability? What is the ideal development review process? The responses to the codes forum were published and distributed to the public. Lecture Series A lecture series with a focus on development codes was assembled. A total of 16 speakers were invited during an 18-month period to discuss various aspects of development codes. The lecture series was http://www. planning. org/practicingp lanner/print/O 5 fall/ essentials .htm 12/19/2005 Planning Essentials . Page 2of4 beneficial for everyone to learn from the experiences of others. In lieu of sending only a few people to conferences, planners invited the speakers to Farmers Branch to make presentations to the city so that the public, commissioners, planners, and other staff members could benefit instead of a limited few. The lecture series informed the city on various regulatory options. .'.l Figure 1 The Regulating Plan m Figure 2 Building Envelope Standards for Shopfront Colonnade Sites Evaluation and Comparison by Students Graduate students from the School of Urban and Public Affairs, University of Texas at Arlington, assisted in conducting an objective evaluation of the existing development code. The students surveyed frequent users, reviewed and evaluated the existing code, and compared results of the existing code with projects in neighboring cities. Results confirmed what the city had known for a long time. The development codes needed to be fixed. While the recent efforts to streamline the development review process were working, the frequent users noted several conflicts in the existing codes. The conflicts were largely due to the unwieldy nature of the development code that had been tweaked more than 500 times. Students reviewed the entire set of existing codes. They also compared them with codes from neighboring cities and codes from about 50 other cities. Following are three key findings from their evaluation report: 1. Farmers Branch codes rely heavily on use and less on physical form. 2. The existing codes are not consistent with the planning principles adopted in the station area master plan. For example, the existing station area has a proscriptive minimum setback requirement of 15 feet. Since it is a minimum, as long as it is over 15 feet you can place the building anywhere on the lot, resulting in a very unpredictable and undesirable street front. The station area master plan specifies pulling the buildings closer to the sidewalk to allow for an enhanced pedestrian realm. 3. The good news is that the existing code complied and exceeded the requirements of Texas statutes. For example, in Texas, city rezonings and specific use permits have to appear before a planning and zoning commission and a city council, but site plans and certain plats do not require public hearing and can be handled administratively. In many cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, site plans are reviewed administratively. Because Farmers Branch exceeded state requirements, there were further opportunities to streamline the development review process. And the Winner Is . All research and inquiry pointed to one conclusion: Existing conventional zoning was not going to deliver the vision of the station area master plan. The appeal of a form-based code was growing. A form-based code approach was considered the best match with the station area master plan. More than any other tool, it would ensure that new development will take place in an urban form that will produce the desired http ://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/essentials.htm 12/19/2005 f lanning Essentials Page 3of4 town center. A form-based code also offered a streamlined development review process since it provided clear parameters based on the master plan. A form -based code is a land development regulatory tool that places primary emphasis on the physical form of the built environment with the end goal of producing a specific type of "place" rather than "use." The key components of the form-based code are a regulating plan (see Figure 1 for an illustrative example), building envelope standards (see Figure 2), street sections, architectural standards, and definitions . The regulating plan provides specific information on the permitted development for each lot, particularly as the lots relate to the public spaces (streets, squares, parks, etc.) and surrounding properties. The building height, siting of the building on the lot, and uses are defined in the building envelope standard. The street sections illustrate configurations for typical street types within the station area. Specifications address vehicular traffic lane widths, curb radii, sidewalk and tree planting area dimensions, and on-street parking configurations. Architectural standards regulate the important public elements of the facade. Certain terms that are not readily understood by the public or terms that are meant to be used in a specific way are clarified in the section of the code on definitions. Hire an Expert The production of form-based codes requires an interdisciplinary sensitivity to urban design, architecture, landscape design, traffic engineering, and even market demand. Moreover, crafting the regulating plan and associated building envelope standards requires knowledge, skills and experience in drawing - typically using computer-aided design software. Building envelope and architectural standards require an understanding of architecture, landscape architecture, and building construction. Generally, planning offices do not have the skill sets and have to rely on design consultants to prepare form-based codes. Farmers Branch retained Ferrell Madden Associates, an interdisciplinary firm specializing in form-based codes. Know the Limits of Planners' Skill Sets Six months later, the proposed code was ready. Crafting a form-based code requires an appreciation and knowledge of how different individual components contribute to the whole urban built form. For planners with no formal design and construction training, the learning curve is steep. Architects receive formal training in design and construction, and they can transition smoothly from design of individual buildings to the larger built environment. The regulating plan and building envelope standards are usually generated using design software, a tool commonly used in the architecture and engineering professions but not so readily found on the planner's tool belt. The challenge to city planners comes after the consultant has delivered the code and a developer proposes minor changes to the regulating plan. No matter how perfect the code is the day it is adopted, amendments are bound to be necessary. Lean city budgets are not likely to support repeated use of consultants to make minor changes such as moving a street five feet on the regulating plan or modifying the building envelope standards. Planners with form-based codes will have to learn the tools necessary to carry out minor amendments in-house. Conclusion The advice received from the codes forum and lecture series was extremely valuable. It brought several hours of gratis consulting services to the city. Creative use of limited funding and resources has allowed Farmers Branch to develop a code that is fully grounded in the station area master plan. It was a constant struggle to stay true to the clear and defined vision and not to waver into a compromise. The form-based code could not have been achieved without the strong relationships that developed early on between the consultants, city agencies, and the development team. The city is now in an implementation mode that is putting in place the key regulatory mechanism to ensure the physical form of the station area neighborhood is fully realized. Naturally, refinement of the master plan is a part of implementation, but the clear spirit, intent and integrity of the citizen-endorsed vision for the station area imbue the proposed form-based code. http ://www. planning. org/practicingplanner/print/O 5 fall/ essentials .htm 12/19/2005 .Planning Essentials Page 4of4 Kaizer Rangwala, AICP, has been in planning practice for 17 years. Before starting his planning career, he apprenticed with two architectural firms for five years. He has worked for Jersey City and Indianapolis and now heads the planning division at Farmers Branch. He holds a master's degree in architecture from NJIT and master's degree in city and regional planning from Rutgers University. The author wishes to thank Geoffrey Ferrell, Mary Madden, and Peter Katz, whose work and writings on form-based codes is a constant source of inspiration. Resources www.farmersbranch.info/planning www.formbasedcodes.org Images Image courtesy of Ferrell Madden Associates ©Copyright 2005 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/essentials.htm 12/19/2005 PractitiDner's Bookshelf Page 1of5 Practicing Planner ~ Print Now Practitioner's Bookshelf Form-Based Codes: A Supportive but Critical Perspective by Jerry Weitz, AICP "Form -based coding" is an emerging land development regulatory tool that is being implemented by an increasing number of local governments. It has been defined succinctly by Rouse and Zobl (2004) as "a regulatory approach designed to shape the physical form of development while setting only broad parameters for use." Rather than regulating use by zoning districts, form-based codes regulate development by building type, street type, location (character area), transect or ecozone (Duany and Talen 2002). Form-based coding also can use a combination of some or all of these. While the term "form-based code" only recently has received widespread acceptance, the "building type" coding technique was applied as early as 1982 by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), in Seaside, Florida. Since Seaside, and the Kentlands experience in Gaithersburg, Maryland, in 1989, elements of form-based coding have been applied by DPZ and other New Urbanist firms in more than 200 communities (Katz 2004). DPZ teamed with Dover, Kohl & Partners in applying form-based coding to a 338-acre area including a 1.4 million square foot mall site (Dadeland) in Kendall, Florida (Steuteville 2004). Peter Katz persuaded leaders of Arlington, Virginia, to apply form-based coding to the Columbia Pike (Rouse and Zobl 2004) (Peirce n.d.). The code is intended to revitalize the existing, older Columbia Pike road corridor (Wade 2003). The form-based code, adopted in February 2003, was preceded by an eight-day charrette conducted by Dover Kohl and Ferrell Madden Associates of Washington, D.C. (Katz 2004). The Smart Code (Transect Codeware Company), developed by DPZ and licensed by the Municipal Code Corporation, is a well-known form-based code that can be tailored to individual communities. In July 2003, Petaluma, Cal ifornia, was one of the first communities to adopt a Smart Code, which governs 400 acres in the city's downtown (Katz 2004; Rouse and Zobl 2004). The American Planning Association and the Congress for the New Urbanism contributed significantly in advancing the particulars of form-based coding, with recent sessions devoted to the topic (see Lewis 2004a and Ross 2004), an issue of Zoning Practice (Rouse and Zobl 2004), and a Planning Advisory Service Report, Codifying New Urbanism (Congress for the New Urbanism 2004). Now that form-based codes have become the latest land-use regulatory technique to consider, more planners are wondering if their communities would benefit from adopting them and whether such codes might even replace conventional zoning ordinances. Indeed, recent conference sessions by the American Planning Association on the topic of form-based codes have been well-attended (see Ross 2004a). This article provides a supportive but critical assessment of the prospects for including form-based codes in local land-use and land development regulations. Advantages and Benefits of Form-Based Codes Form-based regulatory processes are preceded by a vision or design charrette, and the codes are therefore interwoven with community visioning processes (Katz 2004 ). The charrette or visioning workshops preceding a form-based code "invite local residents and business people to take a lead in redesigning their own environment." The form-based code "translates the vision into rules for building" (Wade 2003). In this sense, they bring planning and regulation closer together. http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/practitionersbookshelf.htm 12/19/2005 Practitioner's Bookshelf ' Page 2 of 5 Form-ba sed cod es break the monotony of conventional bulk regulations (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) by establishing regulations by building type rather than zoning district. This "provides the freedom to create one set of rules for one building type and another set for a different type" (Katz 2004). They thus provide new tools (e.g., minimum height) and make good use of old tools. Proponents note that form-based codes provide street-oriented details that make for better places to live. Reportedly, form-based codes ha ve been successful in leading to a higher comfort level among citizens about greater density (Katz 2004), and t hey ca n have a better impact "on the ground" than zoning. Fo rm-based codes use graphics more than text. They often include graphics showing building types, bu ilding height and placement on the lot, street types and streetscape improvements, and in some cases architectural elements (windows, doors, balconies, etc.). Such graphic details are sometimes encouraged by localities as "design guidelines" that supplement conventional zoning ordinances, but they are not usually provided in conventional zoning ordinances themselves and are therefore not "regulatory" in na ture as they are in form -based codes. The use of illustrations increases understanding of the code (Burdette 2004). Concerns and Criticisms To date, the literature on form-based codes is almost entirely positive, and only scattered criticism exists. There are many reasons to be optimistic and supportive of the movement toward greater integration of design -based codes with zoning techniques. One exception is Christopher Duerkson's remarks at an APA conference session on the topic in 2004. Duerkson asserted that form-based codes are not comprehensive, too staff intensive, not user-friendly, and weak on process. Furthermore, Duerkson cautions (see Ross 2004a) that planners should be wary of model codes such as the Smart Code. In my opinion, Du erkson's cautions are right on target, and to date the literature and conference sessions have not emphasized the ch allenges inherent in moving to a form-based code. Form-based codes serve a certain "niche" need, but widespread replacement of zoning with form-based codes is unlikely. Peter Katz (2004) cites Andres Duany's advice since the early 1990s that pl anners should "just throw your existing zoning [ordinance] in the garbage." As Duerkson noted in an APA conference sess ion (see Ross 2004a), conventional zoning is easy to understand and the outcomes of the regulations are predictable, even if such codes are not always user-friendly. Arlington's form-based code for Columbia Pike is an optional development process -"technically ... just a voluntary substitute for exist ing zoning" (Peirce n.d.). Smart Codes in Saratoga Springs, New York, and Petaluma, California, have replaced existing zoning within portions of those cities only (Rouse and Zobl 2004). Planners have reason to doubt that form -based codes are capable of replacing fully conventional zoning schemes. Burdette (2004 ), for example, asserts that local governments are unlikely to scrap their zoning ordinances. Form-based codes are a logical extension of the "design guidelines" approach. Peter Katz (2004) has noted that "Band-aid" measures like design guidelines, when "cobble[d] onto existing ordinances ... j ust make matters worse." He finds further that design guidelines "are difficult to apply consistently, offer too much room for subjective interpretation, and can be difficult to enforce." Yet, not all form-based codes incl ude architectural standards, perhaps because some communities are unwilling to regulate architecture or because planning offices don't have all the skill sets needed to administer architectural standards (see Rangwala 2005 in this issue). Furthermore, local governments may be unwilling to hire a staff (town) architect, but a retainer provides an alternative to adding full-time staff. Little implementation of form-based codes has occurred in rural areas. Potential exists for applying form-based codes in rural areas, but there are few rural applications to date. One of the reasons that rural applications have not y et been reported is because form-based codes apply primarily to areas that are urba n (or more precisely, "new urbanist") or at least suburban in character. Also, the land uses discussed in such regulations (e.g., penthouses, shopfronts, loft buildings, etc.) are unlikely to be found in rural areas. The literature reveals only one example of applying a form-based code in a rural area, in Woodford County, Ke ntucky (Lewis 2004). Form-based codes, or zoning regulations, are just one dimension of local land-use and http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05 fall/practitionersbookshelf.htm 12/19/2005 .Practiti'oner's Bookshelf Page 3 of 5 development regulation. To date, form-based codes have not proved to be complete sets of development regulations. Experience with a form-based code in downtown Kendall (Dade County), Florida, suggests that one of the bigger problems with administration of the code is conflicts with engineering (public works) standards and practices such as line-of-sight (site-visibility) triangles at intersections (Steuteville 2004). When one considers that form-based codes emphasize design but not some of the particulars of development site planning (e.g., grading practices and stormwater management), it is not surprising that they supplement but do not replace unified development ordinances. Regulations are unlikely to be comprehensive if they consist only of "a set of annotated building cross-sections and plan diagrams assembled on a single, letter-size sheet" (Katz 2004 ). Substantial follow-up work should be anticipated. Because form-based codes to date are not co mprehensive, they cannot supplant unified development codes. One of Arlington, Virginia's planning co mmissioners, in response to a question on the Virginia Planners listserve, noted: "Arlington is enjoying FBC [form-based coding] but it is probably raising as many questions as we had thought it had solved. It still has a future, but we are already making many adjustments to it -adding guidelines for historic preservation, LEEDs certification and affordable housing, among others (Eric Dobson, Arlington Planning Commissioner, Reply to Virginia Planners Listserve, July 16, 2005). Rangwala (2005 in this issue) also alludes to the need for additional follow-up work in Farmer's Branch. Staff and other resources may be deficient. The legal justification for form-based codes needs to be established with well-researched, comprehensive master plans, but many jurisdictions have neither the resources nor the planning staff necessary to engage in the detailed planning efforts needed to support form-based codes (Lewis 2004b; Rangwala 2005 in this issue). Zoning is heavily criticized, yet form-based code writers do not abandon permitted uses matrices and bulk standards found in conventional zoning ordinances. They simplify use regulations and add to the bulk regulation techniques. Form-based codes go beyond most co nventional bulk regulations (for instance, by imposing maximum height limits) and include additional regulations such as minimum heights. Indeed, Katz (2004) notes that the "diagrammatic regulating plan, which indicates what goes where," is similar in some ways to a zoning map but "is far more detailed." Form -based codes also differ from conventional bulk provisions of zoning ordinances in that they establish coverage maximums or minimums by specific type of land use rather than by zoning district (Katz 2004). Even so , form-based codes do regulate by use (Lewis 2004a) and they usually have a simplified permitted use matrix. A list of permitted uses that is more general is usually provided. According to Geoffrey Ferrell of Geoffrey Ferrell Associates, the "downfall of many zoning ordinances has been their attempt to be overtly inclusive of all possible uses" (Lewis 2004 ). Yet, Robert Sitkowski noted in another APA conference session on the topic that form -based codes cannot abandon the regulation of uses (Ross 2004). Conclusion If not for form-based coding, local planners would not be as far along as they are today in fashioning ru les that help make better places to live. Many advantages of form-based codes exist, including better results (than zoning) on the ground, stronger connections between plans and regulations, effective illustration of building rules, and greater consistency of the built environment with stated community desires. Planners must be realistic, however, in suggesting how much form-based coding will supplant conventional zoning. Proponents represent them as simpler to understand than zoning, but many form- based codes add new regulations that may be perceived as more complicated than conventional zoning. Some modification of form-based coding techniques is needed to deal with suburban areas (which are not going away, and the continued existence of which cannot be denied), and the concept has hardly begun to be applied in rural areas. Until they become more comprehensively integrated into the entire land-use regulatory system, form-based codes will add value but are unlikely to supplant entirely the existing land- use regulations of localities. Planners charged with development review will continue to have several questions unanswered when trying to apply the "one page" graphic of regulation that is a trademark of the form-based code. There are currently few words of wisdom on integrating form-based codes with environmental review processes. There are tremendous challenges in shifting to a new code paradigm and process, and those http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/print/05fall/practitionersbookshelf.htm 12/19/2005 ,Practitioner's Bookshelf Page 4of5 challenges have been almost completely neglected. More attention needs to be given to successes in the adoption and implementation process as well as staff administration. More sobering assessments of the particular challenges and detailed implementation considerations are needed in order for local planners to overcome implementation obstacles and for form-based codes to reach their full potential. References Arlington County, Virginia. 2004. The Columbia Pike Special Revitalization District Form Based Code. Section 20 (Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance, "CP-FPC" Columbia Pike Form Based Code Districts). Burdette, Jason T. 2004. "Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?" Major paper for Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Contra Costa County, California. The New Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code: Architectural Standards. (final draft, not dated) Geoffrey Ferrell Architects, LLC, Washington, DC. Congress for the New Urbanism. 2004. Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 526. Chicago: American Planning Association. Davidson, Michael, and Fay Dolnick. 2004. A Planners Dictionary. Planning Advisory Service. Chicago: American Planning Association. Du any, Andres, and Emily Talen. 2002. "Transect Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 68, 2 : 245-266. Farmers Branch, Texas. Farmers Branch Station Area Form-based Code. Katz, Peter. November 2004. "Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning." Planning. Lewis, Megan. April 27, 2004a. Form-Based Zoning. Coverage of the 2004 National Planning Conference of the American Planning Association. Lewis, Roger K. 2004b. Traditional Zoning Can't Meet the Challenge of Modern Development. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9505-2004Jul23_2.html Peirce, Neil. n.d. "A Cure for Cluttered Roadways?" The Washington Post Writer's Group. http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir0616. htm Petaluma, California. Central Petaluma Specific Plan Smart Code. Ross, Lynn. April 25, 2004. New Urbanist Codes. Coverage of the 2004 National Planning Conference of the American Planning Association. Rouse, David, and Nancy Zobl. 2004. Form-Based Zoning. Zoning Practice 5 (May 2004). Rouse, David, Nancy L. Zobl, and Graciela P. Gavicchia. 2001. "Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design. Part One: The Evolution of Physical Design in Zoning." Zoning News (October 2001). Rouse, David, Nancy L. Zobl, and Graciela P. Gavicchia. 2001. "Beyond Euclid : Integrating Zoning and Physical Design. Part Two: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design." Zoning News (November 2001). Santa Barbara County, California. 2003. The Isla Vista Form -based Regulating Code. (Draft 6-05-03). Opticos Design. Sharpe, Jeremy E. 2004. "An Examination of the Form-based Code and Its Application to the Town of Blacksburg ." Major paper for Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Steuteville, Robert. December 2004. "A Suburban Agglomeration Becomes a Downtown." New Urban http://www. planning. org/practicingplanner/print/O 5 fall/practitionersbookshelf.htm 12119/2005 .Practitioner's Bookshelf News. http://www.newurbannews.com/Kendal1Dec04.html Tracy, Steve. Spring 2003. Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide. Sacramento: Local Government Commission. Transect Codeware Company. Smart Code. Municipal Code Corporation. Page 5 of 5 Wade, Stephen. June 24, 2003. "Form-Based Codes: Arlington Employs New Rules to Revitalize Columbia Pike." Intersect: Newsletter of the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities, Volume 7 Number 4. http://www.washingtonregion.net/v7n4.html#form. For more see information: http://www.co.arlington.va.us/forums/columbia/current/ oodford County, Kentucky. "The New Urban Code for Woodford County, The City of Versailles and the City of Midway." Ferrell Rutherford Associates. Washington, D.C. ©Copyright 2005 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved http://www. p Janning. o rg/practicingplanner/print/O 5 fall/practitionersbookshelf.htm 12/19/2005