HomeMy WebLinkAbout01112007 ZPC Minutes
City of West University Place
A Neighborhood City
® Recycled Paper ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION
BILL WATSON CONFERENCE ROOM
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
MEETING MINUTES
January 11, 2007
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Brown, Beth Beloff, Michael Silver, Les
Albin, Mac McManus and Jeffrey Horowitz
(arrived at 6:15 p.m. during agenda item 2)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Inaba
STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Scarcella, Chief Building Official, Sallye A.
Clark, Planning Assistant and James Dougherty,
City Legal Counsel
Call to Order - With quorum present at 6:03 p.m., Steve Brown called the meeting to
order.
• 1. Minutes.
December 14, 2006: Mac McManus made a motion to approve the minutes as
written. Les Albin seconded. Ayes: Steve Brown, Beth Beloff, Michael Silver, Les
Albin and Mac McManus. Noes: none. Motion passed. Minutes approved.
2. Framed Area and Related Regulations; Amendments. ZPC first started the
discussion with Buildings in Rear Yards with public comments. Steve Brown also
stated the front porch proposed amendment is on the City Council January 22, 2007
agenda. Ren Ruiz with Covington Builders, questioned whether the proposal to
decrease the framed area percentage as lot size increases would affect the minimum
building size; Mike and Helen Talianchich, 2708 Werlein; Jackie Richey, 3718
Arnold; and Michele Scheffer, 3727 Georgetown spoke in opposition to the Buildings
in rear yards amendment. James Hill, 3241 Bellefontaine an architect, was present on
behalf of Tim Hansen and is willing to offer his assistance with the framed area or
town center items. Public comments were ended and discussion began amongst ZPC
members in reference to residential design and compatibility standards in Austin,
Texas. It was requested that this document be located and brought back for
discussion at next month's meeting.
Steve Brown would also like to find out what information Bob Inaba has gathered
from Seaside Florida in reference to the building envelope concept before continuing
further discussion.
ZPC also requested that the staff bring back a copy of the Zoning Ordinance for
University Park, Texas along with a chart that Nes Tesno, previous City Planner and
James Dougherty, Legal Counsel composed on a comparison of Texas Cities Zoning
ordinances for further discussion next month.
ZPC discussed Lot Area vs. Framed Area graph, table and amendment. It was a
consensus of ZPC that these documents were in good shape at this time.
3800 University Boulevard • West University Place, Texas 77005-2899 0 713066804441 0 www.westu.org
Zoning & Planning Commission Minutes
January 11, 2007 Meeting
Page 2 of 2
ZPC discussed the amendment to add "sloped setback" height limits with
"penetrating volume" dated 1-9-2007. ZPC stated the amendment was also in good
shape and ready to go, but it will be put aside until Bob Inaba brings information
forward on building envelope concept. After discussion of the Schedule FA (framed
area document, with handwritten date 1-10-2007) amendment, Jim Dougherty will
redraft and bring this document back to next month's meeting for further discussion.
Jim Dougherty, Legal Counsel handed out a document "Implementing Formed Based
Zoning in your Municipality"
4. Town Center and Commercial Areas; PDD's. ZPC briefly discussed the agenda
for Town Center and it was a consensus that they were at item number three.
Adjournment. Beth Beloff made a motion to adjourn. Les Albin seconded.
Ayes: Steve Brown, Beth Beloff, Michael Silver, Jeffrey Horowitz,
Les Albin and Mac McManus. Noes: none. Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:16
p.m.
Attachments:
Agenda Request, Preliminary Report and amendment to Buildings in Rear Yards
Written comments from Helen Talianchich, 2708 Werlein, dated 1-11-2007
Email dated 12-15-2006 from Scott Ramsey 3781 Georgetown
Lot Area vs. Framed Area graph and Table, dated 12-2006
. Amendment regarding a formula for framed area, dated 11-5-2006
Amendment to add "sloped setback" height limits with "penetrating volume", dated 1-9-
2007 with figure HRD
Amend Schedule FA As Follows dated 1-10-2007
"Penetrations" illustration dated 12-2006 by Les Albin and Mac McManus
"Implementing Formed Based Zoning in your Municipality" from Jim Dougherty, Legal
Counsel
Agenda for Town Center discussion, draft date 11-7-2006
PASSED THIS 94 DAY, OF , 2007.
Steve Brown, Presiding Officer
ST:
ukxkwu~,
(allye A. CIA, Planning Assistant
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC mkt lENDA REQUEST
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
AGENDA OF: October 23, 2006 ITEM NO.
06-55
DATE SUBMITTED: October 17, 2006 DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Public Works
PREPARED BY: D. Scarcella, Bldg. Official PRESENTER: S.
C. Peifer, Brown, ZPC Char Director
L. Albin, ZPC Member
SUBJECT: Buildings in Rear Yards
I
EXHIBITS: Ordinance Number 1831
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N/A
AMOUNT BUDGETED: N/A
ACCOUNT NO.:
N/A
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: N/A
ACCOUNT NO.: N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 25, 2006 City Council requested a workshop to obtain more information and discuss
the proposed Ordinance Number 1831, which amends Table 7-6,
regulating buildings in the rear yard. This proposed amendment alloote 3 of the Ordinance
w a de ac dnaccesssory building
only to project into the rear yard (twenty feet) if certain criteria are met. A new criterion is separation
between the primary structure and the accessory structure. The separation required is based on a
percentage of the lot width calling for a minimum of 7% between main walls, and 5% between any
other portions of the buildings (eaves, bay windows, etc.).
The proposed amendment also allows for an unenclosed breezeway connecting the principal and
accessory structures, as long as the walkway does not exceed three feet in height, and the roof does
not exceed fourteen feet in height. A joint public hearing with the City Council and members of the
Zoning and Planning Commission has been called for November 13,
2006. The members of the C
City Staff are interested in any feedback or direction from City Coil concerning the p oposed
amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Discussion purposes.
•
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
City of West University Place
Harris County, Texas
Ordinance No. 1831
AN ORDINANCE CALLING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON A
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS REGARDING BUILDINGS IN
REAR YARDS, ETC.; PRESCRIBING PROCEDURES AND NOTICES;
CONTAINING FINDINGS AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO
THE SUBJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Zoning and Planning Commission ("Z&PC") of the City of West
University Place, Texas ("City") has submitted a preliminary report on a proposal to
amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City, as last reformatted and re-
adopted by Ordinance No. 1672, adopted March 12, 2001, and as amended thereafter
("Zoning Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the Z&PC's preliminary report is attached to this ordinance as
Exhibit A and made a part of this ordinance by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to call a joint public hearing on such
proposal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby calls a joint public hearing before the City
Council and Z&PC on the proposal described in Exhibit A. Unless rescheduled, the
hearing shall be held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 3800 University
Boulevard, West Universi Place, Texas 77005 during the City Council meeting set to
begin at 6:30 p.m. on,~~ _w& . The hearing ma be recessed and continued
to the City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on i~ dab at the same
place, unless rescheduled. The City Manger may reschedule either date and time, or
both, to accommodate other pending matters, but the rescheduled date(s) and time(s)
may not be later than 30 days past the later of the two dates set by this ordinance.
Section 2. The purpose for the hearing is to provide an opportunity for parties in
interest and citizens to be heard in relation to the proposal described in Exhibit A
Section 3. The procedures for adoption of the proposal shall be as follows: (1)
notice as required by this ordinance, (2) hearing as called by this ordinance, (3) report
by the Z&PC, and (4) vote by the City Council on the question of adoption. The
procedures for enforcing the proposal shall be as set out in the existing Zoning
Ordinance. The proposal described in Exhibit A is hereby submitted and re-submitted
to the Z&PC for its consideration.
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Section 4. The City Secretary shall give notice of such hearing as prescribed by
this section. The notice shall be in substantially the form set out in Exhibit B, which is
attached and made a part of this ordinance by reference. The notice shall be published
in the City's official newspaper (or another newspaper of general circulation in the City)
at least once on or before the 16th day preceding the date of the hearing. In addition,
the notice shall be mailed to the persons on the mailing list for the City Currents
newsletter. The notices shall be deposited in the United States mail on or before ninth
day preceding the date of the hearing, properly addressed with postage prepaid. The
notices may be included within the newsletter, or with utility bills or may be separate.
The City Council specifically approves giving combined notice of two or more hearings
in a single notice document, as this would save money and also provide better
information about the full scope of possible amendments to all interested persons.
Section 5. The City staff is authorized to make all necessary arrangements for
the hearing and to assist the Zoning and Planning Commission and the City Council.
Section 6. If any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other
part of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
ever be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of this ordinance and the application of such word, phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph, section or other part of this ordinance to any other persons or circumstances
shall not be affected thereby. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
• are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict only.
Section 7. The City Council officially finds, determines and declares that
sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of each meeting at which
this ordinance was discussed, considered or acted upon was given in the manner
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as
amended, and that such meeting has been open to the public as required by law at all
times during such discussion, consideration and action. The City Council ratifies,
approves and confirms such notices and the contents and posting thereof.
Section S. Because the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance is vitally
important and should be considered at the earliest possible date, a state of emergency
is declared requiring that this ordinance be read and adopted finally at this meeting.
Accordingly, this ordinance shall be adopted finally on first reading and shall become
effective immediately upon adoption and signature.
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
PASSED, APPROVED, ADOPTED AND SIGNED on 20dl.
Attest/Seal- Signed:
1 ecretary May
Recommended: Prepared:
ity Manag r
Approved as to legal form:
City Attorney
forms/ORD 54 o calling zoning hearing 7-06
•
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Exhibit A
Zoning & Planning Commission
City of West University Place, Texas
3800 University Boulevard
West University Place, Texas 77005
July 13, 2006
Honorable Mayor &
Members of the City Council
City of West University Place
3808 University Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77005
Subject: Preliminary report on a proposal to amend the
zoning ordinance of the City of West University
Place, Texas ("City") relating to BUILDINGS IN
REAR YARDS
To the Honorable Mayor
& Members of City Council:
The Zoning & Planning Commission of the City submits this,
its preliminary report, on the subject proposal, for the
assistance of the Council as well as other interested persons.
Scope of Proposal The proposal would amend Note 3 of table
7-6 to allow only detached accessory buildings to be located in
rear yards or SF Bufferyards. The proposal would also require
minimum separations between a building in a rear yard and other
buildings outside the rear yard. The minimum separations would
be 7% of the building site depth (measured from main wall to main
wall) and 5% of the building site depth (measured between the
closest parts of the buildings). Example: If the depth were 100
feet, the minimum separations would be seven and five feet,
respectively. The proposal allows connection of buildings by
"breezeways," within specified limits.
The principal purpose is building separation. Today, some
homes are built with a high, solid structure extending from the
front yard to the rear, encompassing not only the main house but
also garage areas. Requiring separation should: (i) help
firefighters control house fires (particularly those originating
in rear garages), (ii) provide better emergency access to areas
behind houses, (iii) help prevent overcrowding, and (iv) allow
more light and air to reach rear yards and adjacent properties.
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Preliminary Recommendation. Based on the limited review
given this matter so far, and subject to further review following
public hearing, the Commission: (i) finds that the proposal, if
adopted, would be in the public interest, (ii) makes a
preliminary recommendation favorable to the proposal, (ii)
recommends that the City Council call a joint public hearing to
consider this matter. The Commission invites all interested
persons to participate in the joint public hearing.
The Vote. The vote on approval of this report was as
follows: Commissioners13rouxyNorOuwi+2zBelofF,SIVetoild W-MAnug voted
"aye; " no "noes; " 'bbgi"Mbi n absent.
Respectfully submitted:
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, TEXAS
By:
For the Commission
i
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Amendment relating to
buildings in rear yard
(Table 7-6)
7-13-06 (preliminary report version, with proportional building separations)
Amend Note 3 of Table 7-6 as follows:
Note 3. Buildings In Rear Yard or SF Bufferyard. A detached accessory building may be located
in a rear yard or SF Bufferyard if it meets all of the following criteria: (a) No part
of it-the buildin& may be closer than five feet to the rear property line (or to any
SF District, if in a SF Bufferyard). (b) The minimum horizontal separations
between the buildin and all other buildin as on the buildin site other than those
located com letel within the rear and or SF Buffe and are 7% of the buildin
site depth measured from main wall to main wall and 5% of the buildin site
depth (measured between the closest Darts of the buildines) Fr
de th is 100 feet the minimum separations are seven and five feet res ect vel .
f } LclWithin ten feet of another building site in an SF District (whether on the
side, rear or otherwise), it- the buildin may have no window, door or other
opening above the ground floor (and facing the property line of the other building
• site), except for eflectranslucent (but not transparent), non-operable openings
or skylights. Space in the building may only be used for
single-family (detached) use. E e If there is a "breezeway" c
onnecthl~ the
buildin to an other build in it must b
than three feet and a roof no hi er than 14 feetlosed with a walk wa no hi er
afw- (f) (T)here is no more than 600 square feet of building space, other than
garage space, in the Dart of the buildin& in the rP
1~~~. See garage restrictions in Article 10. d or SF Buffervard
•
• Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Exhibit B
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Zoning & Planning Commission and the City Council of the
City of West University Place, Texas ("City") will hold joint
public hearings in the Council Chamber of the Municipal
Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77005 during
th City Council meeting set to begin at 6:30 PM on
6 Each hearing may be recessed and continued to the
City Co i.l meeting set to begin at 6:30 p.m. on
6 , at the same place. The purpose
for tfie hearings is to provide an opportunity for parties in
interest and citizens to be heard in relation to proposal(s) to
amend the City's Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
Buildings in Rear Yards, Etc. This proposal would allow
only detached accessory buildings to be located in rear
yards (or SF Bufferyards). The proposal would also require
minimum separations between such a building and other
buildings outside the yard area. The minimum separations
would be 7% of the building site depth (measured from main
wall to main wall) and 5% of the building site depth
(measured between the closest parts of the buildings).
Example: If the depth were 100 feet, the minimum
separations would be seven and five feet, respectively.
The proposal allows connection of buildings by
"breezeways," within specified limits. The proposal would
amend Note 3 of Table 7-6.
[Insert others]
Additional details on the proposal(s) as well as the Zoning
Ordinance are all available for public inspection in the
municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, Houston, Texas
77005. The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance would apply
generally within the City, and any person interested in such
matters should attend the hearings. The proposal(s) may be
adopted only after notice and hearing and would control over
anything inconsistent in the current Zoning Ordinance.
Date: /s/ Kay Holloway, City Secretary
Ct VM19M-7 ZP6 MI-A- LCUJ
W~/It'4
tn R4 -/0 My name is He en Talianchic 've been a resident of W.U. since 1976. I have lived in 6
different homes here most of them bungalows and have experienced many changes. W.U.
is a charming neighborhood that has always distinguished itself from the sprawling
subdivisions with its variety of homes and traditionally most of the homes had rear
garages. The proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to buildings in rear
yards would promote front loaders, (garages in the front) which to me are not as
attractive. I loved my home at 3819 Arnold Street which had a rear garage. Under the
new ruling I would not be able to build this house as there was a games room over the
garage that was only 13 feet from the back fence. By attaching the rear garage to the
house we were also able to have a 240 sq ft of breezeway which was wonderful with
Houston's inclement weather. It also enabled us to have sufficient space behind the
garage for the a/c units. In my current home I have a 3 feet covered walkway to the
garage that is a joke as far as protection goes as we were not able to repeat the 240 sq ft
breezeway as it is now considered framed area. By not having living space above the
garage in my current home the house foot print was pushed further back and there was
not sufficient space to place the a/c units behind the garage. I love trees and plants that
attract birds and butterflies and had a garden with many Texas plants at my previous
home on Arnold and enjoyed many different birds including a baltimore oriole that
wintered there, a family of wrens and numerous hummingbirds. Light, breezes and
hummingbirds would zip through that breezeway. I would encourage you all to shelve the
proposed change and allow the 60% lot coverage rule that is already in place suffice.
Thank you kindly for reviewing this information which I would like to be recorded in the
minutes of your meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Talianchich
2708 Weriein
1/11/07
Page 1 of 2
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Sallye Clark
From: Scott Ramsey [scott_ramsey@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:44 AM
To: Sallye Clark
Subject: Z&PC Meeting last night (12/14) re Buildings in Rear Yards
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Sallye - this is a message for the Chair of the Z&PC, Mr. Steve Brown. Please forward to him
with a copy to the entire Z&PC.
Mr. Brown,
I attended the Z&PC meeting last night and wanted to let you know that I was very impressed
by your team and the thoughtful consideration you all gave to all the points made by the many
speakers. It is clear to me that you have the best interests of the Community at heart.
I live at 3781 Georgetown, which is a corner lot. I have recently begun the design process to
build a new home on my lot. While I am not interested in building the maximum square footage
house that I can on the lot, I was considering a C shaped design (around a courtyard pool) that
would have resulted in a wall virtually the entire length of the buildable area. After being made
aware of your proposal by my architect, we drafted an alternate plan which would meet the
proposed requirements, but still meets my needs. After hearing more of the discussion last
night, I agree with the Z&PC that something should be done to prevent these long high walls (I
understand that others in my position are apparently looking to build the maximum square
footage).
While it is clear that the current proposal creates numerous issues WestU residents and
builders are unhappy with, I encourage you to continue to think of a way to allow the space
over a detached garage to be more useable (2nd story walkway offset from the property line,
etc.). I also like the idea of possibly combining this with a loosening of some of the restrictions
on 3rd floor attic space usage.
Thank You for leading the Z&PC and all your Commission members for the time you put in on
our behalf.
Regards,
Scott A. Ramsey
3781 Georgetown St
Houston, TX 77005
1/4/2007
Lot Area vs. Framed Area
A
18000
C3
e4-
e4-
16000
80%
-f- 4000+.5(lot area-5000) N
14000 °
70% v
3811 Riley Nti
12000 - 2729 Albans n
3710 Sunset.
e~ 2731 Barbara °
a 10000 3717 Sunset
d 3303 Sunset
~
8000 3019 Sunset
LL 2621 Cason
3777 Sunset
6000 awl 3424 Robinhood
r~ 4: 6402 Vanderbilt
4000 2607 Pemberton
3220 Plumb
6411 Vanderbilt
2000
0
O O O O O O O h O ~o O O O O O O O
o'~~ Iyo°°
Lot Area
I
• s •
Lot Area 80% 4000+.5(lot area-5000) 70% 3811 Riley 2729 Albans 3710 Sunset 2731 Barbara 3717 Sunset 3303 Sunset 3019 Sunset
5000 4000 4000 3500
5720 4576 4360 4004 4523,
6000 4800 4500 4200
6720 5376 4860 4704 5307
7440 5952 5220 5208 4144 5920
7500 6000 5250 5250 5843 c
7700 6160 5350 5390 5033
7875 6300 5438 5513 6291
9000 7200 6000 6300
9066, 7253 6033 6346,
°
0
10000 8000 6500 7000
12500 10000 7750 8750 N
b
13500 10800 8250 9450 n
15000 12000 9000 10500,
16200 12960 9600 11340
17500 14000 10250 12250
20000 16000 11500, 14000,
I
2621 Cason 3777 Sunset 3424 Robinhood 6402 Vanderbilt 2607 Pemberton 3220 Plumb 6411 Vanderbilt
~r
0
7137
7191 c
N
b
8736 n
7889 9517
9011
0
rA
10125
Amend1J#I*pgO '71 -2007 ZPC minutes
a formula for framed area
01-5-06
Amend Table 7-4b (both pages) as follows:
Table 7-4b' Buildings General Rule: Every structure must conform to the applicable regulations shown, by District, in
this table.("N/A" means the rule does not apply.) Exceptions/Special Rules: (1) See special rules
noted in table. (2) See Article 9 re ardin Planned Develo ment Districts.
Item Regulation SF-I SF-2 SF-3 TH GR-1 GR-2 C
Dwelling units Maximum number per One, plus one accessory quarters (AQ) 17.5 per Two 24 per acre. See Uses
building site acre. See table and
Note 8 Art. 9
Framed area, all buildings Maximum area as a 80% 4.000 sq. ft. plus 50% of the area 100% See Note 4. N/A
on a building site percentage of building of the building site in excess of 5.000
site area s . ft.
Length or width, any Maximum horizontal N/A 130 feet. See Note 3. N/A
building dimension
Exterior materials, any Type N/A Must be of equal grade and quality, all sides. See
buildin . Section 8-104.
Separation of DU's Fire-rated wall N/A A four-hour fire wall, or its equivalent, must separate
adjoining dwelling units. See Notes 3 and 5.
SF privacy protection See Note 7. N/A Applies. N/A
Accessory buildings Maximum number per Three N/A
building site
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 25 ft. 35 ft. See
Note 2.
Principal buildings Stories, maximum Two and one-half. Three. See Note 6 N/A
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 35 feet; 25 feet in rear yard. See Note 1 35 ft. or
less. See
Note 2.
Minimum gross floor 1,400 square feet, if used for residential 1,200 sq. 750 sq. ft, each DU 1,400 sq.
area purposes ft., each ft.
DU.
Width, minimum N/A 16 ft., each N/A But see QMDS N/A
DU. Schedule.
Note 1. Antennas and Chimneys. Roof-mounted radio or television antennas on a principal building in a residential district may project up to four feet
above the roof. The maximum height of chimneys attached to a principal building is the greater of 35 feet or four feet above the roof.
AmendmAetnt fimad
o ~.-iht~~,07 JPC minutes
"sloped sdt act e/g ►ml IS
ith "penetrating volume"
1-9-07
Amend Table 7-4b (both pages) as follows:
Table 7-4b' Buildings General Rule: Every structure must conform to the applicable regulations shown, by District, in this
table.("N/A" means the rule does not apply.) Exceptions/Special Rules: (1) See special rules noted
in table. (2) See Article 9 regarding Planned Development Districts.
Item Regulation SF-1 SF-2 SF-3 TH GR-1 GR-2 C
Dwelling units Maximum number per One, plus one accessory quarters (AQ) 17.5 per Two 24 per acre. See Uses
building site acre. See table and
Note 8 Art. 9
Framed area, all buildings Maximum area as a 80% 100% See Note 4. N/A
on a building site percentage ofbuilding
site area
Length or width, any Maximum horizontal N/A 130 feet See Note 3. N/A
building dimension
Exterior materials, any Type N/A Must be of equal grade and quality, all sides. See
building. Section 8-104.
Separation of DU's Fire-rated wall N/A A four-hour fire wall, or its equivalent, must separate
adjoining dwelling units. See Notes 3 and 5.
F privacy protection See Note 7. N/A Applies. N/A
Aocessory buildings Maximum number per Three N/A
building site
See Article 10 regarding
garage space. Height, maximum 2944 Other than chimneys, no part of an accessory building maybe higher than 20 35 ft See
feet plus the horizontal distance from that part to the nearest property line (not to Note 2.
exceed 25 feet total). See Figure HRD. Thi§ is a "sloped" height limit See also
Notes 1 and 10.
Principal buildings Stories, maximum Two and one-half. Three. See Note 6 N/A
See Article 10 regarding
higher
garage space. Height, maximum 35 feet; 25 feet - ' c-- ' No part of a principal building may be 35 ft or
than 20 feet plus the horizontal distance from that part to the nearest property line (not less. See
to exceed 35 feet total or 25 feet in rear yard). See FigureHRD. This is a "sloped" Note 2.
height limit See also Notes 1 and 10.
Minimum gross floor 1,400 square feet, if used for residential 1,200 sq. 750 sq. ft, each DU 1,400 sq.
area purposes ft, each ft
DU.
Width, minimum N/A 16 ft, each N/A But see QMDS N/A
DU. Schedule.
Note 1. Antennas and Chimneys. Roof-mounted radio or television antennas on a principal building in a residential district may project up to four feet above
the roof. The maximum height of chimneys attached to a principal building is the greater of 35 fleet or four feet above the roof.
srs
ote 10. Dormers and Gables Ordinary dormers and gables in a residential district may exceed (or "penetrate") the sloped height limit if- M no part exceeds
the maximum height (35 feet, or 25 feet in rear yard)' and (ii) the total cubic feet ofpenetrating volume on the building site does not exceed 40-five
multipled by the depth of the lot (measured in feet) In this note "penetrating volume" means the volume of those parts ofddonme-f-s and the
building that exceed (or "penetrate") a sloped height limit
Figure HRD
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Sloped Height Limit in Residential Districts
i i
i i
Height limit (non-yard areas); see Table 7-4b
I I
i 35 feet (height)-
I I
I I
I I
I I
---45- -degree- ---angle- - -
20 feet (height)
I I
I I
I I
Side property line Side property line
I I
I
I I
I 1
I I
Standard base
Conceptual view from front street line. * Lower height limit applies in rear yard.
Not to scale.
Note: Many other regulations apply, in addition to those shown in this figure. Nothing in this figure allows structures to
be located in yards or "setbacks." See Tables 7-2 and 7-6.
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Amend Schedule FA as follows: Y/ 0/0, - 7 -oe. o-5k) n
SCHEDULE FA
(FRAMED AREA)
A. General rule: Framed area reflects the size of a building, in square footage. Framed area includes all floor
and ground areas under a solid, fixed roof, except the uncounted areas listed in this Schedule. Floor and ground
areas are measured, on each level, according to the measurement method set out below. For each building, the
measured areas for each level are totaled to produce the framed area of the building.
B. Measurement method: For each level of a building, the framed area is the area of an imaginary, horizontal,
unbroken plane immediately atop the structure supporting the floor (or immediately atop the ground, where
there is no floor). Each plane extends horizontally to the outer main wall surfaces of the building, or to the outer
perimeter of the structure above (whichever is outermost). For this purpose:
1. steps, landings, sunken areas, floor openings and similar features are not considered separate levels, so
there is no plane on those levels;
2. each plane extends to the outer wall surfaces of bay windows, cantilevered space and similar space on
the same floor, regardless of the height of the floor;
3. if there is a "split level" or similar irregular floor level, the building official may designate either one
level to define the imaginary plane for that floor, or separate planes for the separate levels; and
4. if area (all or part) within a one-story building has an interior height exceeding 19 feet, the area is
doubled to calculate framed area (and if it has a interior height exceeding 31 feet, the area is tripled).
C. Uncounted areas: The following areas are not counted as framed area:
1. attic area that cannot be reached through a fixed accessway;
2. third floor area beneath a regular roof surface
e. a lane a cone at r-nWe- k-, her re-move, on(If
i has Jms--a itch neither lower less-than "4-in-12" nor eater than ■l2-in-12. 45 de ees
ii begins beefiuiine at a lower edge (e.g., an guo at a hei t below 25 f
and les ow b Table 74Note IQ )j and
m either rises to a peak point or fiAn*rises to meet a they such roof surface at a
ri eline (or peak point ; see Figure °'fie ° ° where `here is ^ intffief heig less
than seven feet-;
3. those non-attic parts of an imaginary plane on a second or third-floor level, above which there is less
than seven feet of interior height;
4. area beneath eaves, cornices, roof extensions, "greenhouse" or bay windows, cantilevered space and
similar parts of buildings that project outward from the main wall of a building no more than 24 inches,
if the area is on a lower floor level (or at ground level) and is otherwise completely open to the
outdoors;
5. unenclosed porch area of a principal building, if the longest side of the porch directly faces the front
street line or side street line of the building site, and the area is neither designed nor usable for motor
vehicles;
6. the area of "crawl space" at ground level;
7. unenclosed walkway or "breezeway" area if. (A) the area directly connects a principal building to an
accessory building containing garage space located behind the principal building; (B) the total covered
width of the area does not exceed eight feet; and (C) no part of the roof is higher than 14 feet;
8. area of recessed entries (garage or home) or windows that is completely open to the outdoors on at least
one side, if. (A) each area faces the front street line or side street line of the building site, (B) each area
•
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
is not larger than 100 square feet, and (C) the total of all such uncounted recessed area is less than 200
square feet; and
9. basement area if: (A) the floor is at least five feet lower than the standard base level of the site, and (B)
the interior height does not exceed eight feet.
(The rules for uncounted areas shall be strictly construed and applied to the defined areas only.)
[Drawings may be added.]
► I L6-rravc)(15 ~ ULo B ~-e5 f91hi r~
Attachme to 1-11-2007 ZPC
i \
t
1 r line
I SIC. PrL J t
' Setbac:~ '
I
r~r~e c~f I 1 I
I I I
1 I I
1 1 I
F EFT Vi.e ,L- O i
h~'C
~ J
d.ettedt ►*rrwb r---__ l»115
re pce`~ ol- I
bul I3,11,19-er vk l q)4
I
I
I
I
1
-----J
I
L -----------I I
- / C
Stt I -e Vt e u-)< l C J -J
l11+'-~ 1 1
T Z2 E
r------' `
I
I
1 ~
I ~
1 1
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I ~
L------------ I
_J
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
7zi: z
I ~
r-----i `
1 1
~ I
I 1
I ~
1 I
I j
I I
I
I I
I
~ I
L------------
Si d f UI ftt2 o-( hct,L~e,
~ -~'t ` L 1 11 7 ZpO- ~
ate JJ
Zoning in Your Municipality
Form-based zoning emphasizes regulation of the
by Carla IM, an - streetscape and the public realm. Rather than regulating
the location of lased uses, it is concerned Mth regulating
zoning is a rela 'vely new
ceptthaisbeingpr and building types, building dimensions, parking locations,
Fa=doptedend
- in whole or in part by cit-
ies and towns throughout the United tes.' and Meade tGa°znreu.
This article compares form-based zoning the
more familiar Euclidean' or use-based zon g, A regulating plan. The regulating plan es-
and discusses why and how to implement for - tablishes the vision for development in a par-
based zoning in your municipality. titular area. The plan shows where form-based
,t codes apply, and it guides property owners in how
Form-Based Zoning Defined to comply with those codes by providing easy-
Conventional zoning, often referred to as Eu- -follow illustrations of build-to lines, projected
clidean zoning or use zoning, emphasizes regu- his ing footprints, and the building types al-
l lation of the location of different land uses. Con- lo' n each site.
ventional zoning codes separate land uses into Bu ng envelope standards. The building
geographic districts and restrict the development envelope s dards ensure that new develop-
that may occur on the lots within each district. ment is consist with the character of the zone
The first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1919 by prescribing bui ' heights, placement, and
in New York City, and within a year, more than orientation. Each bui ' 's placement is gov-
twenty additional municipalities had proposed emed by a build-to line the dies the posi-
or enacted zoning laws.' Today, most cities tion and location of the building's fron .
and towns have adopted traditional use-based Street standards. The stre,.r standards de-
zoning codes that divide all of the land under fine a community's streerscaPe and public space
their jurisdiction into a number of different dis- by prescribing street network and block patterns,
tricts or zones (e.g., residential, commercial, and as well as hardscape and landscape materials 11
industrial); define the land uses permissible such as tree species and the types of lampposts
in each zone; and specify the density restric- and pavement.
tions for each zone in the form of maximum Architectural standards. Although they are
building heights and floor area ratios, allowable not necessarily pan of a form-based zoning code,
lot coverage, required setbacks, and yard and architectural standards help to create a com-
lot dimensions. munity's desired appearance by providing details
In contrast, form-based zoning emphasizes on acceptable building styles, architectural ele-
regulation of the streetscape and the public menu, and construction materials.
realm. Rather than regulating the location of continued on page 16
land uses, it is concerned with regulating build
-
i ing types, building dimensions, parking loca. Carle M. Moynihan is an attorney in Robinson & Cole's
® tions, and fa*e features.' Unlike a traditional Land Law Section, specializing in the acquisition, per-
zoningcode,"aform-based code takes the posi- mitting, financing, and construction of commercial
tion that the design of buildings is much more real estate, and representing developers, investors,
important and long-lasting for the community public entities, institutions, and lenders. She received
{ quality of life than ...[the uses) allowed in the her B.A. from Connecticut College and J.O. from Boston
z- s - building."' University Law School, and is a member of the Boston
Bar Association, Boston Society of Architects, Real
Componeafs of Form- Estate Bar Association, New England Women in Real
Based Zoning Codes Estate, and Women's Transportation Seminar. Moyni-
Certain components are characteristically han is a frequent author and lecturer on land use de-
present in a form-based zoning code:' velopment matters.
-
July/August 2006 Vol. 47, No. 4 15
(UtOUK 011± Imo ri 7'C am
9
Zoning in Your Municipaii Y.
Form-based zoning emphasizes regulation of the
by Carta Mt Moynihan
streetscape and the public realm. Rather than regulating
the location of land uses, it is concerned with regulating
Form-based zoning is a relatively new
zoning concept that is being proposed and building types, building dimensions, parking locations,
adopted - in whole or in part - by cit-
ies and towns throughout the United States.' and facade features.
This article compares form-based zoning to the
more familiar Euclidean' or use-based zoning, A regulating plan. The regulating plan es-
and discusses why and how to implement form- tablishes the vision for development in a par-
based zoning in your municipality. ticular area. The plan shows where form-based
codes apply, and it guides property owners in how j
Form-Based Zoning Defined to comply with those codes by providing easy,
Conventional zoning, often referred to as Eu- to-follow illustrations of build-to lines, projected
clidean zoning or use zoning, emphasizes regu- building footprints, and the building types al-
lation of the location of different land uses. Con- lowed on each site.
ventional zoning codes separate land uses into Building envelope standards. The building
geographic districts and restrict the development envelope standards ensure that new develop-
that may occur on the lots within each district. ment is consistent with the character of the zone
The first zoning ordinance was enacted in 1919 by prescribing building heights, placement, and
in New York City, and within a year, more than orientation. Each building's placement is gov-
enty additional municipalities had proposed erned by a build-to line that specifies the posi-
or enacted zoning laws.' Today, most cities tion and location of the building's front.
and towns have adopted traditional use-based Street standards. The street standards de-
zoning codes that divide all of the land under fine a community's streetscape and public space
their jurisdiction into a number of different dis- by prescribing street network and block patterns,
tricts or zones (e.g., residential, commercial, and as well as hardscape and landscape materials
industrial); define the land uses permissible such as tree species and the types of lampposts i
in each zone; and specify the density restric- and pavement.
tions for each zone in the form of maximum Architectural standards. Although they are
building heights and floor area ratios, allowable not necessarily part of a form-based zoning code,
lot coverage, required setbacks, and yard and architectural standards help to create a com-
lot dimensions. munity's desired appearance by providing details
In contrast, form-based zoning emphasizes on acceptable building styles, architectural ele-
regulation of the streetscape and the public ments, and construction materials.
realm. Rather than regulating the location of continued on page 16 j
land uses, it is concerned with regulating build-
ing types, building dimensions, parking loca- Carla M. Moynihan is an attorney in Robinson & Cole's
tions, and fagade features.4 Unlike a traditional . Land Law Section, specializing in the acquisition, per-
zoning code, "a form-based code takes the posi- mitting, financing, and construction of commercial
tion that the design of buildings is much more real estate, and representing developers, investors,
important and long-lasting for the community public entities, institutions, and lenders. She received
quality of life than ...[the uses] allowed in the her B.A. from Connecticut College and J.D. from Boston
building.," University Law School, and is a member of the Boston
Bar Association, Boston Society of Architects, Real
Components of Form- Estate Bar Association, New England Women in Real
Based Zoning Codes Estate, and Women's Transportation Seminar. Moyni-
ertain components are characteristically han is a frequent author and lecturer on land use de-
present in a form-based zoning code:' velopment matters.
July/August 2006 Vol. 47, No. 4 15
4- IU7 WO MiktL±04 4-aA&d ULf
FORM-BASED ZONING communities where they effectively de- existing zoning code, or by adopting an
fine and codify a neighborhood's exist- overlay zone that uses form-based zon-
continued from page 15 ing "DNA," allowing desirable building ing for particular areas that have been
types to be easily replicated, and pro- targeted for development." How a par-
dvantages of Form-Based moting infill that is compatible with ticular municipality chooses to adopt
oning Codes surrounding structures. form-based zoning will depend, in large
The advantages of form-based zoning The code is simplerfor non-experts part, on the information gathered in
codes (over traditional use-based zon- to follow. Because form-based zoning response to the implementation strate-
ing codes) are numerous,7 as has been codes are more concise and are orga- gies discussed in this section.
emphasized by Peter Katz, president of nized for visual access and readability, Do your homework. Municipal at-
the Form Based Codes Institute:' they are much more easily used by torneys, planners, and other staff mem-
people with little or no experience in bers should first compile current ver-
The desired outcome is more likely real estate development. In contrast, sions of all regulatory, planning, and
to be achieved. Form-based codes lead traditional codes typically have zoning policy documents concerning the mu-
to a more predictable physical result, regulations in several different sections, nicipality, including comprehensive
due in part to the fact that they set forth which may not be apparent to the in- plans, master plans, regional plans, zon-
exactly what a community wants, rather experienced user. ing regulations, wetlands regulations,
than what it does not want. subdivision regulations, design guide.
Public participation is encouraged. Adoption of a Form-Based lines, and road specifications.12 In addi-
Form-based codes tend to encourage Zoning Code tion, local officials should gather infor-
public participation because citizens can Should your municipality adopt some mation pertaining to the availability of
more easily understand the zoning re- type of form-based zoning?9 Clearly, key infrastructure to support new develop-
quirements and can actually visualize stakeholders should be involved in the ments, population growth statistics, en-
the appearance of a proposed develop- decision (e.g., property owners, devel- vironmental resources, and economic
ment. This increased understanding opers, other municipal officials and staff development opportunities.
gives the public a higher comfort level members, land use commissioners or Determine existing shortcomings.
in discussing the various aspects of a board members, and interested commu- The next step should be to conduct an
project with prospective developers and nity groups). These stakeholders should analysis of the existing planning and
local land use officials. Moreover, be- begin by acquiring a thorough under- zoning regulatory system, focusing on
cause form-based codes do not embed standing of the form-based zoning con- applications for development projects in
development, criteria in complex text, cept and its components, how form- which the current regulatory system did
local land use officials drafting new zon- based zoning differs from traditional not work well - whether because of the
ing codes are able to spend less time on zoning, and what advantages it offers. time-intensive nature of the review pro-
complicated "word-smithing" and more As municipal officials start down cess, the failure of the existing regula-
time creating easy-to-understand graph- the path toward adopting a form-based tions to adequately address design ele-
ics that illustrate the regulations. code; it is crucial to continue to involve ments, or some other problem. 13 This
A wider range of property owners these key stakeholders, and the public analysis should help inform subsequent
can participate in development. Form- at large, whenever possible - and to discussions with stakeholders about im-
based codes promote independent de- give them the opportunity to discuss provements that should be made to the
velopment by multiple property owners their concerns in public forums. As the system and their feasibility.
because these codes can regulate devel- process continues, regular communica- Identify existing development
opment at the scale of an individual tion with all stakeholders will help en- conditions and patterns. Municipalities
building or lot, obviating the need for sure continued buy-in; it will signifi- should also develop an inventory of all
large land assemblies and the mega-de- cantly reduce conflict and misunder- existing conditions and patterns of de-
velopments that are frequently proposed standings and will expedite the imple- velopment in the community in or-
for such parcels. mentation process. der to understand the particular needs
More diverse development tends Municipalities have taken various of their community. In particular, the
to result. Developments built pur- approaches to the adoption of form- inventory should identify all existing
suant to form-based codes often lead based zoning. A few have adopted com- street, block, and building types in or-
to the pleasing diversity of architecture, prehensive form-based zoning codes der to elicit the appropriate form and
materials, uses, and ownership that all at once, as wholesale replacements massing of buildings to be proposed
can come only from the actions of of their existing zoning codes.10 Al- therein. The inventory should also iden-
many players operating within an though this is the most thorough and tify locations with high levels of devel-
agreed-upon community vision and effective way to adopt form-based zon- opment activity, major sites that will be
legal framework. ing, it is also the most costly and time- available for development in the near
A community's visual character is consuming. Most communities have future, and areas in need of infill.14
more easily maintained. Form-based begun the process by making form-based Collaborate with the public. Mu-
codes work especially well in established zoning an option that is appended to the nicipal officials should share with the
16 Municipal Lawyer
trh~uttt t) 4tom U,
public the background information It is an exciting and interesting time to be involved in~
gathered, the analysis performed on the
current regulatory system, the inventory form-based zoning at the municipal level. Although most.
of existing conditions, and the identifi-
ation of areas in need of development. communities will not immediately replace conventional zoning
Onput from the community at large
should be obtained through a public vi- entirely with form-based codes, it is clear that more and more
sioning process such as a charette: a
"collaborative planning process that localities are considering the adoption of form-based zoning
brings together residents and design pro- in some respect.
fessionals in an intensive multi-day pro-
cess that typically includes focus group
meetings, workshops, presentations, and • Use terminology consistent with ex- of architecture. However, the code
public engagement exercises to develop isting statutes and local regulations. might be drafted to include general de-
a feasible plan for future revitalization • Revise model provisions so that they sign requirements - such as that a
and development."" For years, charettes fit into the rest of your regulatory building facade must have a base, a
have been employed successfully by pri- framework. middle, and a top, or that a particular
vate developers in planning large-scale • Explain graphics clearly in captions type of door and window fenestration is
projects, and their use now appears to and text, and specify their regulatory required at the street level.
be gaining significant momentum on purpose (whether it be to illustrate, Streamline the permitting process.
the public side, due in part to efforts to explain, mandate, or offer guidance). The most important aspect of imple-
adopt form-based zoning. • For discretionary approval processes, menting a form-based code is to facili-
Determine the new plan's spatial provide clear standards to guide de- tate a streamlined permitting process.23
basis. Before starting to draft a form- cision makers. As most communities that handle a sig-
based zoning regulation, your munici- nificant number of development project
pality must determine how the form- Other code-drafting principles are applications recognize, "developers are
based code will be defined and regulat. particularly important for drafting a much more willing to abide by design
ed - in short, how it will be organized. form-based zoning code:19 guidelines if they know that compliance
Paul Crawford, one of the nation's will assure a permit.1114Accordingly, de-
experts on form-based codes, describes Establish clear and concise stan- tailed and carefully drafted form-based
four basic alternatives: (a) neighbor- dards. For example, urban standards will codes create greater predictability for
hoods, districts, corridors; (b) transect; be needed concerning streets, blocks, both developers and the public. If an
(c) a street-based regulating plan; and building placement, building height, and expedited permit process can be offered
(d) special purpose zones. 16 This step land uses. These standards must be de- to applicants who follow the form-based
involves the identification of those fined for all of the different parts of the code, a municipality might encourage
sections in the community that are community, necessitating diagrams for developers to spend more money on el-
appropriate for different types of de- each zone that clearly establish standards ements such as the building fagade,
velopment. For example, if a commu- for the key elements of an urban place, rather than on a prolonged public pro-
nity uses the transect approach, the including street and sidewalk widths, cess and its associated costs.
regulatory plan might identify those building placement, building height, and
areas that are suburban, general urban, the location of any on-site parking.20 Conclusion
urban center, urban core, and special Define standards with user-friendly It is an exciting and interesting time to
districts such as schools, civic centers, graphics. Standards should be pre- be involved in form-based zoning at the
or industry. 17 sented in a graphic format that is well- municipal level. Although most com-
Draft the form-based code. In gen- illustrated, jargon-free, and easy to read munities will not immediately replace
eral, the drafting principles for form- and understand. The graphics should conventional zoning entirely with form-
based zoning codes are similar to those include all information and regula- based codes, it is clear that more and
for conventional use-based zoning. An tiori relevant to a particular district more localities are considering the adop-
excellent outline of zoning code draft- (street type, neighborhood, etc.) in one tion of form-based zoning in some re-
ing principles is set forth in the Ameri- concise illustration to ensure there is spect.25 The overview offered in the
can Planning Association's Planning no confusion resulting from overlook- foregoing discussion should be used by
Advisory Service Report No. 526, edcross-references.21 all those involved in regulating land use
which includes the following recom- Maintain neutrality concerning at the municipal level to make imple-
mendations:" architectural style. The form-based mentation of form-based zoning as
code should be drafted in a manner that efficient and rewarding as possible for
• Cite the legal authority for munici- is `.`style-neutral."22 In other words, keep the community.
pal regulations (typically a provision the regulation as permissive as possible
of the state enabling statute). by not referring to any particular style continued on page 36
July/August 2006 Vol. 47, No. 4 17
Jb 1/t 1/6-1 -7P(- In-fa OtLatdl& 4Ac~ Ctt+
Folu~-BASED ZONING Plan-zorung.html#zoningord; San Anto , see also, Steve Langworthy, Form Based Codes
Tex., adopted the Unified Development and Michigan Zoning Enabling Acts, MICH. ST.
continued from page 17 Code (Chapter 35) in May 2001, see www. U. EXTENSION LAND USE SERIES (April 24,
sanantonio.gov/dsd/udc; Sonoma, Cal., 2006) at http://webl.msue.msu.edu/wexford/
adopted the Development Code in 2001, see pamphlet/pamphletFormBasedCode
rtes www.sonomacityorg/Forms/Codebook.pdf; and Langworthy.pdf (discussing the legality of form-
orm-based zoning codes are extensive, and Syracuse-Onondaga County, N.Y., adopted based codes under Michigan's zoning enabling
a more complete list is available from the au- the Traditional Neighborhood Development statutes). In 2004, California adopted Assem-
thor, but selected examples include (all URLs Code and the Traditional Neighborhood bly Bill 1268, which explicitly authorizes form-
last visited June 22, 2006): Arlington County, Development Guidelines in 2001, see based codes; Cal. Gov't Code § 65302-4 (2005).
Va.,adopted theColumbia Pike Special Revi- www.syiacusethenandnow.net/Settle In particular, the California statute authorizes
talization District Form Based Code as Section mentPlan/TNDCodeFinal.pdf and www. the text and illustrations in a regulatory plan's
20 of Arlington County Zoning Ordinance in syracusethenandnow.net/Settlement land-use element that address the location and
Feb. 2003, see www.arlingtonva.us/Depart- Plan/TNDGuidelines.pdf. extent of uses, and the zoning ordinances that
ments/CPHD/Forums/columbia/current/ 2. Referring to the Village of Euclid, Ohio, ap- implement these provisions.
CPHDForumsColumbiaCurrentCurrent pellant in the landmark Supreme Court case 10. CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM, CODIFY-
Status.aspx; Austin, Tex., adopted the upholding the authority of governments to ING NEW URBANISM: HOW To REFORM MUNLa-
Traditional Neighborhood District Article of enforce zoning regulations. Vill. of Euclid, Ohio PAL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (PAS
the Land Development Code in 1997, see v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). #526) (APA Planning Advisory Service, 2004)
www.ci.austin.tx.us/deveIopment/ 3. CHARLES M. HARK & MICHAEL. ALLAN WOLF, at 33 (referencing the fact that three smaller
ldcl.htm; Belmont, NC, adopted a Traditional LAND-USE PLANNING' A CASEBOOK ON THE USE, communities in North Carolina - Cornelius,
Neighborhood District Ordinance as part of the MISUSE, AND RE-usE of URBAN LAND § III (Little Davidson, and Huntersville - all developed
Regulating Ordinance in Aug. 1995, see Brown & Co. Law & Business, 4th ed. 1989). complete new ordinances).
www.ci.belmont.nc.us; Burnsville, Minn., 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION, FORM- 11. See supra note 4 (referencing the fact that
adopted the Heart of the City District as Chap- BASED CODES: IMPLEMENTING SMART GROWTH, Petaluma, Calif., adopted a form-based code
ter 22B of the Zoning Ordinance in 1999, www.Igc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/ for 400 acres of underutilized land near its
see www.ci.burnsville.mn.us; Cape Coral, Fla., fact-sheets/form_based_codes.pdf (last visited historic downtown).
adopted three form-based zoning districts June 22, 2006). 12. See supra note 10 at 26.
downtown (Core, Gateway, and Edge) as 5. Dom NOzzI, WALKABLE STREETS, MODEL UR- 13. Id.
part of the Land Use and Development BAN DESIGN REGULATIONS, wwwwalkablestreets. 14. Id.
Regulations in Nov. 2005, see www.spikowski. com/model.htm (last visited June 22, 2006). 15. See supra note 4.
com/CapeCoralOrd91-05.pdf; Chesapeake See also, CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, Tx, CODES 16. Id.
City, Md., adopted the Traditional Neighbor- PROJECT: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, 17. Id.
Ag&pod District and Design Guidelines as Sec- www.ci.farmers-branch.tx.us/Planning/ 18. See supra note 10 at 29.
ns 109 and 1656f the Zoning Ordinance in codes7FAQs.html (last visited June 22, 2006) 19. See supra note 4.
une 1999, see www.chesapeakecity-md.gov/pdf (stating that the form-based code places "pri- 20. Dom Nozzi, WARBLE STREETS, MODEL UR-
PZ00506.pdf, Columbus, Ohio, adopted mary emphasis on the physical form of the BAN DESIGN REGULATIONS, www.walkablestreets.
the Traditional Neighborhood Development built environment with the end goal of pro- com/model.htm (last visited June 22, 2006).
Article of the Zoning Code in May 2001, ducing a specific type of `place). 21. See supra note 4.
see www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index. 6. Franz Heitzer, Form-Based Zoning, Am. 22. Id.
htm; Fort Collins, Colo., adopted the Land Use PLANNING ASS'N PAS Quia NoTEs No. 1, at 23. Id.
Code in 2001, see www.colocode.com/ftcollins/ www,planning.org/pas/member/pdf/ 24. Id.
landuse/begin.htm; Gainesville, Fla., adopted QNltext.pdf (last visited June 22, 2006). See 25. Irvine, Calif., is considering the adoption
a Traditional Neighborhood Development Dis- also, National Sea Grant Office, Focus: of a form-based code known as the Mixed
trict and aTraditional City Overlay District as Form-Based Codes, CCD BULLETIN #6 ( May Use Residential Overlay Zoning Code.
Article VII, Division V and Appendix A, Sec- 27, 2005) at 1, at http://www.seagrant.noaa. The draft zoning code for the Residential
tion 4, respectively of the Land Development gov/the m e s n p a / c c d _ b u 11 e t i n / c c d _ Mixed Use Overlay District was released for l
Code, in Nov. 1999, see municode.com/re- bulletin _6.pdf. public review in October 2005 and is expected
source s/gateway.asp?pid=10819&sid=9; 7. Peter Katz, Form First: The New Urbanist to be considered at a. City Council meeting
Gresham, Or., adopted Land Use Districts Alternative to Conventional Zoning, PLANNING, in July 2006. See www.cityofirvine-org/depts/
and Plan Districts as part of its Community Nov. 1, 2004, at 16. cd/planningactivities/ibc_graphics.asp.
Development Code in May 2001, see 8. The URL for the Form-Based Codes Insti- Miami, Fla., is considering the adoption of a
www.ci.gresham.or.us/departments/cedd/ tute is www.formbasedc6des.org (last visited form-based code known as Miami 21, which
dp/code.asp; Louisville, Ky., adopted Form June 22; 2006). entails a holistic approach to land use and
Districts as Chapter 5 of the Land Develop- 9. The discussion on implementation of form- urban planning.The City Council is expect-
ment Code in Aug. 2002, see http://www. based codes that follows assumes that munici- ed to consider passage in fall 2006. See
louisvilleky.gov/PlanningDesign/ldc/ palities will first establish that form-based asoft12.securesites.net/secure/miami2.I/
ldc2004.htm; Miami-Dade County, Fla., zoning in their jurisdiction, if enacted, would index.php?src=gendocs&link=miami2l
adopted a form-based code for downtown not be subject to legal challenge as an ultra vires draftlanding. NL
Kendall as Article XXXIII (I) of the Zoning exercise of authority. Some communities have
Code in 2000, see www.municode.com/re- questioned whether such codes are a legal
sources/gateway.asp?pid=10620&sid=9; means of regulating land use; see Robert J. Get the latest
etaluma, Cal., adopted a form-based code for Sitkowski & Brian W. Ohm, Form-Based Land Conference news at
entral Petaluma known as the Smart Code Development Regulations, 38 URB. LAW. 163
in June 2003, see cityofpetaluma.net/cdd/ (2006) (discussing legal authorization issues);
36 Municipal Lawyer
Attachment to 1-11-2007 ZPC minutes
Draft date 11-7-2006
Agenda for Town Center Discussion
ZPC November 9, 2006
1. Review/modify/endorse Potential Objectives from 6/10/2004, revised 10/30/2006
2. Review/modify/endorse proposed resolution providing QPED design guidelines
as revised 10/31/2006. Weigh need for a similar resolution to accompany C-PED
zoning.
3. Decide to move forward on hiring a design/planning firm or on working with
Kirksey pro bono to produce sketches that show conceptually what the design
guidelines could produce and back-test the guidelines under various conditions.
4. Decide on a plan and timing for a public Town Center Design Workshop
The proposal for discussion is a well publicized and well timed meeting of the
ZPC at which our proposal for the town center would be presented to the public
for their reaction/input/guidance. A facilitator would be employed to take the
lead at the workshop and do the bulk of the work in preparing for it. The
facilitator would work under the guidance of the ZPC and City staff.
Envisioned for the workshop are a PowerPoint presentation to introduce the topic,
outline important objectives, highlight key issues and options, and address the
decisions that need to be made. To stimulate discussion there would be
illustrations of what the town center might look like and photos of other towns
where "desirable" redevelopment with similarities to ours is taking place. Small-
group discussions would be encouraged and breakout guidelines for the workshop
would be part of the facilitator's assignment.
To ensure participation by key stakeholders, personal invitations by ZPC
members to the property owners and nearby residents might be appropriate.
5. Discussion of proposed C-PED zoning regulations (if time permits)