form-based codes and historic preservation: a case study primer

5/14/2018 Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation: A Case Study Primer - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/form-based-codes-and-historic-preservation-a-case-study-pri

FORM-BASED CODES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION:

A CASE STUDY PRIMER

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Historic Preservation

by

LaLuce David Mitchell

Department of Historic Preservation

The School of the Art Institute of Chicago

August, 2011

Thesis Committee:

Advisor: Eleanor Gorski, Commissioner, Commission on Chicago Landmarks

Reader: Carol Wyant, Executive Director, Form-Based Codes Institute

Reader: James Lindberg, Director of Preservation Initiatives, Mountains/Plains Office,National Trust for Historic Preservation



Abstract Beginning soon after the end of World War II, a combination of government housing

policies and higher personal incomes resulted in the creation of sprawling development that

discounted the importance of older main streets and neighborhoods in favor of newness and auto-

centricity. Since the early 1980s, the pendulum has begun to swing in the opposite direction withthe popularization of New Urbanism and the return of the affluent to walkable city-centers.

While this signals a renewed interest in the historic buildings that make up these older urban

areas, increased investment also carries the risk of destruction of historic fabric in the name of “progress” and rising wealth. A new movement has developed in the last ten years that aims to

codify the stated aims of New Urbanism – walkability, density, and enhancement of the public

realm – into the zoning codes that legally regulate the construction of building forms and

massing, dubbed Form-Based Codes. What are the potential opportunities and dangers that theimplementation of these new zoning codes present to the Historic Preservation movement and

the historic fabric that it seeks to protect?

This thesis explains what form-based codes are and why they are of importance to

preservationists and then explores the potential implications of the form-based codes movementon historic preservation. In order to illustrate the results in practice, the thesis presents a series of

three case studies, each of a city that has enacted a full form-based code or smaller-scale form- based zoning provisions that govern a district with significant historic fabric. Based on planning

reports and a series of personal interviews, the case studies address new codes in Denver,

Charleston, and Riverside, Illinois. The three codes differ in the level of their sensitivity to

historic resources and the extent to which preservation-minded individuals were involved indrafting them. Based on its conclusions, the thesis makes recommendations to guide

preservationists in more informed involvement in the development of form-based codes in

historic areas in the future, in order to provide for the maximum possible protection of historic

resources.



2

Acknowledgments

Completion of this Thesis would not have been possible without an energetic and

passionate interest by members of the Form-Based Codes community in Chicago and across the

United States. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Eleanor Gorski. While always

extremely busy at her post as the Commissioner of the Chicago Landmarks Commission, she onmultiple occasions made the time to sit down with me and discuss the minute details that allow

me to develop this thesis to its best potential. She also provided much-needed encouragement atmany points along the way.

I would also like to thank my two thesis readers. Carol Wyant, who is based here in

Chicago and is Executive Director of the Form-Based Codes Institute, provided useful insightinto the realities of how form-based codes are developed and passed into law, as well as into the

philosophies and history behind the movement’s beginnings. Jim Lindberg, of the

Mountains/Plains Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Denver, is one of very

few preservationists that has yet thought deeply about the implications form-based codes couldhave for preservation. He also has hands-on experience in the development of the recently-

implemented code in Denver. His perspective of how and when codes are developed wasextremely valuable, as were his very extensive comments during the multiple revisions of thispaper.

I would also like to thank the following individuals for taking the time for interviews

conducted for this paper: Lee Einsweiler of Code Studio, Robert Gurley of the PreservationSociety of Charleston, Steven Oliver of the City of Denver, Charlie Pipal of the Riverside

Historical Commission, Kathleen Rush, formerly of the Village of Riverside, Arista Strungys of

Camiros, Ltd., and Jeremy Wells of the City of Denver.

I would like to thank both the heads of the Historic Preservation department during mytenure there for their support and inspiration: Anne Sullivan and Vince Michael.

Lastly, I would like to thank my mother Angelika and sister Celia for helping me to get to

the point in my life where I could do something like this. And, finally, I would like to thank themost incredible person in my life, who was my guiding star as I worked through the final stages

of this lofty endeavor, extending the use of her brilliance and inquisitiveness when mine gave

out, my amazing girlfriend Alena.



3

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. The Problems with Conventional Zoning . . . . 6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 6A Brief History of Zoning . . . . . . . 7The Resurgence of Cities and the Rise of New Urbanism . . . 14

Organization of the Paper . . . . . . . 16

Review of Literature . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 2: Seeds for Change: New Urbanism , , , , , 20 What is New Urbanism? . . . . . . . 20

The Founding of New Urbanism . . . . . . 20New Urbanist Projects . . . . . . . 22

Theoretical Basis of New Urbanism . . . . . . 27

Marketing Claims of New Urbanism . . . . . . 29Relationship between New Urbanism and Historic Preservation . . 32

Chapter 3: Seeds for Wide-Spread Change: The Premise of Form-Based Codes 36

What are Form-Based Codes? . . . . . . 36Marketed Advantages of Form-Based Codes . . . . . 37

History of Form-Based Coding . . . . . . 39

The SmartCode: Overview . . . . . . . 44The SmartCode: Sections . . . . . . . 44

Form-Based Coding and Master Plans . . . . . 46

Development of Form-Based Codes . . . . . . 46

Types of Form-Based Codes . . . . . . . 48Typical Sections of a Custom Form-Based Code . . . . 48

Methods of Adoption . . . . . . . . 52Truth or Marketing? . . . . . . . . 54

General Criticisms of Form-Based Coding . . . . . 56

Architectural and Aesthetic Pre-Associations . . . . 58

Chapter 4. Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation . . . 61Sections and Specific Regulations . . . . . . 61

Dangers Posed to Historic Preservation. . . . . . 65

Front-loaded public process . . . . . . 65

Creation of a homogeneous environment . . . . 66 Freezing a place in time . . . . . . 67

Tendency to create inauthenticity . . . . . 68

Can be made to prescriptive for preservation . . . 69

Danger in too much contextual development . . . . 70

Less incentive to keep old buildings . . . . . 70

Inclusion of nonconforming use regulations . . . . 72

Use of historicist styles . . . . . . 74



4

Need for performance requirements . . . . . 74

Opportunities Presented for Historic Preservation . . . . 76 A way for preservation communities to make their interests law . 76

Property Rights argument . . . . . . 78

Regaining of historic character . . . . . 79

Regaining of historic features . . . . . . 81Similar to historic survey process . . . . . 81

Chapter 5. Case Studies of Form-Based Codes in Historic Cities . . 84Denver . . . . . . . . . . 84

Community description . . . . . . 84

Impetus for the new code . . . . . . 86

Code development process . . . . . . 87

Inclusion of historic preservation stakeholders . . . 91

Review of code . . . . . . . 93

Charleston . . . . . . . . . 94

Community description . . . . . . 94 Impetus for the new code . . . . . . 94



Review of code . . . . . . . 103

Riverside . . . . . . . . . 104

Community description . . . . . . 104

Impetus for the new code . . . . . . 104



Review of code . . . . . . . 108

Chapter 6. Conclusion: A Guide for Preservationists . . . . 110

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . 116

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . 123

Appendix A: Charter of the New Urbanism . . . . . 129

Appendix B: Sample Form-Based Code Micro-Scale Survey Form . . 132

Appendix C: Comparison of Regulating Plans . . . . . 135Peoria, Illinois . . . . . . . . . 136

Benicia, California . . . . . . . . 141

Appendix D: Example Form-Based Standards . . . . . 143

Peoria, Illinois . . . . . . . . . 144Benicia, California . . . . . . . . 157

Denver, Colorado . . . . . . . . 173



5

List of Figures

Figure 1. New York City Zoning Districts . . . . . . 8

Figure 2. Typical Suburban Sprawl . . . . . . . 12Figure 3. Seaside, Florida . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 4. Civano, near Tucson . . . . . . . 24

Figure 5. Crawford Square, Pittsburgh . . . . . . 25

Figure 6. Albemarle Square, Baltimore . . . . . . 26

Figure 7. The Transect . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 8. The Form-Based Code of Seaside . . . . . . 41

Figure 9. Kendall City Center . . . . . . . 42

Figure 10. Columbia Pike . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 11. Celebration, Florida . . . . . . . 69

Figure 12. East Colfax Street Plan, Denver . . . . . . 85

Figure 13. Calhoun Street Special Area Plan, Charleston . . . . 97 Figure 14. Riverside, Illinois, Zoning Code Rewrite . . . . . 106



6

Chapter 1.

The Problems with Conventional Zoning

Introduction

Historic Preservation organizations are forever and always in the crosswinds of change.

For the past fifty years, American urban and suburban design has been dominated by the

automobile and a relentless expansion of single-family houses into former farmlands. In the last

two decades, America has begun to realize that this is not a sustainable growth strategy. As a

result, America has begun to look back at the places that are already inhabited and determine

ways to grow within these older places. While there have always been writers and urbanists that

have understood and professed the value intrinsic in older neighborhoods and city centers, these

places have up until recently, aroused little interest in investment by mainstream developers so

preservationists have been able to work there relatively unhindered. With promise of new

investment by developers, there is hope that long-neglected structures that preservationists lost

hope for may be refurbished. However, there is no guarantee that new investment in older places

translates into new investment in the older urban fabric – it could mean inappropriate new

construction in old contexts that have gradually and carefully been formed over decades. It is the

charge of historic preservationists in the twenty-first century, then, to be knowledgeable about

this new development paradigm and work to represent the best interests of older places in order

that they retain their character while allowing investment and, where appropriate, be open to

carefully managed new development.



7

This thesis is a primer meant to educate preservationists about a new type of zoning

called Form-Based Codes that has both positive and negative implications for historic

preservation. On one hand, it could allow preservation to gain a stronger and more legitimate

position in the local regulatory structure; on the other hand, it holds the risk of potentially

encouraging development that is not true to the character of a historic neighborhood or that could

overwhelm its older fabric. In general, form-based codes are a very positive development for the

future of urban design and it serves preservation far better to support this new paradigm and

work within its bounds rather than oppose it. However, form-based codes are not perfect either in

theory or execution up to this point, and so this thesis takes a supportive viewpoint but one that is

critical enough to point out flaws in the two movements themselves and their interaction with

each other.

A Brief History of Zoning

In order to understand why form-based codes are a positive development for urban

design, it is best to begin by understanding the lineage of modern “conventional” or “traditional”

zoning codes, the original intents behind their creation, and the consequences that have occurred

as a result of their widespread adoption.

The earliest government regulation of building massing and size was in the form of

height limits, such as those imposed by Washington, DC in 1899 and Boston in 1904 that

restricted the maximum height of buildings built in different districts of the city. In 1909, Los

Angeles passed an ordinance that divided the city into commercial and residential districts.

1

The first comprehensive zoning ordinance was that of New York City, passed into law in

1916. In this era in New York, land values were increasing quickly, and so buildings were

becoming ever taller in order to take full advantage of the land’s development potential. Blocks



8

of tall buildings increasingly cast the streets below into shadow for much of the day. In addition,

with an expanding manufacturing base in Manhattan, the upscale retailers of Fifth Avenue were

worried about infringement by the garment district moving ever nearer. The new zoning code

was passed to address both of these concerns. The ordinance stated its goal thus:

Regulating and limiting the height and bulk of buildings hereafter erected and

regulating and determining the area of yards, courts and other open spaces, and

regulating and restricting the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed f or specific uses and establishing the boundaries of districts

for the said purposes.2

It established nine “use districts,” which specified what type of use could be present on each lot

in the city. The code also included an overlay district that assigned each lot in the city a ratio

which represented the allowable building height on the lot in proportion to the width of the

street3

(See Figure 1.) This set of ratios essentially

defined a three-dimensional pyramidal envelope on

each building lot that represented the allowable

building area. The literal application of this zoning

provision resulted in the well-known “setback” or

“wedding cake” skyscrapers that were commonly

constructed in New York City from the 1920s into the

1950s.4

The New York Zoning Code was written by

an attorney, Edward M. Bassett, who specifically

defined each provision of the code as justifiable in the

defense of some aspect of public health, safety, or

welfare, and thus as an extension of police power.

Figure 1. The New York City Zoning

Ordinance specified use districts based

on the ratio of allowable building height to street width, which was meant to

regulate bulk moreso than density.

Source: Burdette



9

This made the code legally defensible under the precedents of the day.5

Seeing the potential of zoning to provide predictability in land development and stability

in land values, communities across the country quickly adopted zoning ordinances of their own,

all generally modeled after the New York City ordinance. By 1923, 218 communities had

adopted zoning ordinances, with jurisdiction over 22 million people.

6

In order to legitimize and standardize the legal framework on which this flood of new

codes was based, in 1923 the federal government developed the Standard State Zoning Enabling

Act, a model law that each state could take and adopt in order to officially legalize the adoption

of zoning ordinances by municipalities in the state, thereby assuring municipalities that their new

ordinances were safe from any legal challenges.

7

The whole concept of zoning met its legal challenge in 1926 under the landmark case

Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. The village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland, had in

1922 passed a new zoning ordinance. In 1911, well before that ordinance was adopted, the

Ambler Realty Company had purchased sixty-eight acres of land that it intended to put to use for

industrial purposes, since it was adjacent to the rail line into Cleveland. The new village zoning

code restricted the use of that land by allowing only forty acres of the plot (sixty percent) to be

used for industrial purposes. The remainder was zoned for apartments and duplexes. At the time,

land in industrial use was worth four times as much per acre as land in residential use, so these

new restrictions on the land decreased the value of Ambler’s land by twenty-nine percent.

Ambler Realty sued the Village, claiming that the zoning ordinance deprived the

company of property without due process. The trial court agreed, stating that the Euclid zoning

ordinance was an improper use of police power. The case progressed to the US Supreme Court,



10

which reached a decision that zoning was an effective method of nuisance control and a

reasonable exercise of police power.8

As a result of this decision, zoning was legally upheld and separation of residential uses

from other “more noxious” uses was taken as something of a basic human right. Interestingly,

neither New York City’s nor Euclid’s zoning ordinances completely outlawed a mix of uses. In

New York, one of the nine use types was an “unrestricted” zone, where uses could be mixed

without regulation. In Euclid, the set of use zones was pyramidal, with the most restrictive zone

allowing single-family residential uses only with the remaining zones slowly adding more uses

to the mix, with the least restrictive allowing any type of use, including industrial. Typically,

zoning codes in place since the mid-twentieth century have been less inclusive of mixed-use

zones, instead providing mutually-exclusive zones. There are many reasons for this, among them

the perceived liability issues raised by having industry next to residences.

9

Since the mid-twentieth century, new development has consisted mostly of large tracts of

single-family homes built far from city centers and connected to them by high-speed roadways.

There are several reasons for the spread of this type of development. Beginning in the 1930s, a

series of government actions, programs and laws incentivized new single-family home

construction:

• The 1931 President’s Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership, where the

conclusion was made that building of new and better homes in rural areas should be a

national priority, and that industries should move to rural areas, nearer to their

workers, who were presumed to have better living conditions there.



11

• The 1933 establishment of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the 1934 National

Housing Act, and the GI Bill of 1944 created loan programs that guaranteed low-cost

mortgages for new homes, especially to veterans but also to non-veterans.

• The 1935 Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Building Codes, a set of standards

which prioritized new home construction by making it more profitable for builders to

partake in the construction of new homes than renovating existing ones.

• The 1938 FHA Underwriting Manual, which mitigated many of the risks builders

undertook when building in new subdivisions by assuring that certain bank lenders

would guarantee the mortgages for homes in those subdivisions.10

This series of actions created a vast new market for new housing construction in the suburbs.

With the expansion of the suburbs and the rising ubiquity of the automobile, a modern solution

to the nation’s transportation needs was sought, which resulted in planning for and construction

of the national Interstate Highway System beginning in 1956. The underlying policy framework

that allowed (and, in fact, required) such large tracts of single-family homes to be built,

connected to distant stores and workplaces only by roadways was conventional zoning. By

requiring uses to be separated from each other, this spread-out development pattern was often the

only legal type of development

11

While the horizontal expansion of sprawl due to conventional zoning ensured that the

landscape around major cities was to become low-density and auto-oriented, inner cities

simultaneously began to decline. Most major American cities were quite dense and relatively

vibrant places in the early twentieth century. Beginning in the late 1940s, those dense

neighborhoods began to be slowly abandoned in the process of “white flight,” in which most of

the white, typically higher-income, city residents moved to the suburbs.

(see Figure 2.)



12

With the exodus of income,

inner cities became more

impoverished and less able to

compete with their expanding

suburbs. In time, they looked to the

suburbs themselves for solutions to

the ills that ailed them. While most

cities had adopted conventional

zoning ordinances before World War

II, during this post-war era, they fully

embraced the development those

ordinances enforced and essentially handed their fates over to the automobile. Street parking

lanes were removed in order to create high-speed travel lanes along the curb, new subdivisions

within the city were built without sidewalks, new retail developments were built with large

parking lots in front and only one story tall on the same single-use development formula as such

malls were in the suburbs, disregarding the time-tested tradition of including apartments above

shops. Any new development was a complete reversal of the older urban forms on which

American cities had been built. This showed a resounding lack of confidence in a formula that

had worked and often worked vibrantly until World War II.

In order to understand why the urban forms that conventional zoning typically creates are

so different from the typically development constructed in American through the 1920s, it is

important to understand the underlying (if often unstated) assumptions on which it is based. First,

as the Standard Zoning Enabling Act defined the purpose of conventional zoning thus:

Figure 2. Sprawl is characterized by high land

consumption, low density, and large areas of single uses

divided by buffers from large areas of a different use.

Usually, the only effective way to travel within it is by personal automobile.

Source: ForceChange.org



13

[T]o lessen congestion in the streets; to security safety from fire, panic, and other

dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light andair; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of

population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage,

schools, park, and other public requirements.12

The majority of these provisions specifically seek to reduce density. Thus, it should be no

surprise that developments based upon conventional zoning tend to be very low-density.

Second, conventional zoning is completely numerically-based. There is nothing in a

conventional zoning ordinance that states what the result of its use should be, in a physical sense.

Rather, in order to determine the effect of a zoning code, the lot size is inserted along with a

multiplier called the FAR (Floor-Area Ratio) and the allowable building area is computed. This,

along with parking and setback requirements, are the only guidance a conventional zoning code

gives as to the form a proposed development should take. The code makes no requirements as to

architectural, urban design, or aesthetic traits of the resultant structures. It is not difficult to see

how a code like this could create an unimaginative development.

Interestingly, the decision in Euclid v. Ambler includes this statement:

Thus the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of

a particular kind or for a particular use…is to be determined, not by an abstract

consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering

it in connection with the circumstances and the locality…A nuisance may be

merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the

barnyard.13

While this statement was written as a defense for the reasoning behind single-use zoning, in

hindsight, single-use zoning was too focused on the abstract considerations of buildings and not

so much on the places they inhabited. A very enlightened statement, today it rings as an

endorsement of the transect, a centerpiece of the more recent urban planning philosophy of New

Urbanism.



14

The Resurgence of Cities and the Rise of New Urbanism

The first person to question zoning outside the legal arena was Jane Jacobs. In her best-

known work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961, she states that:

The greatest flaw in city zoning is that it permits monotony. Perhaps the next

greatest flaw is that it ignores scale of use, where this is an importantconsideration, or confuses it with kinds of use, and this leads, on the one hand, to

visual (and sometimes functional) disintegration of streets, or on the other hand,

to indiscriminate attempts to sort out and segregate kinds of uses no matter whattheir size or empiric effect. Diversity itself is thus unnecessarily suppressed. 14

Jacobs is arguing that conventional zoning is hard where it should be soft and soft where it

should be hard. It has been overly rigid in dividing cities into uniform, single-use districts

whereas it is overly permissive in that it does not establish design standards for streets and

buildings that would promote interaction within the public realm.15

Beginning in the 1970s, architects and planners began to show an interest in the

rediscovery of traditional town planning. The group that became arguably gained the strongest

voice over time was those that became known as the “New Urbanists.” They saw sprawl as a

devastating force for communities, one that destroyed the potential for human interaction, and so

sought to adapt traditional planning philosophies and forms as a way to recreate the interactions

and the types of urban spaces found in America’s most treasured older urban places. They soon

found that literally recreating America’s older urban forms would be impossible under

conventional zoning (which generally considers high-density development as a nonconforming

use.) As a result, many of the communities that New Urbanists designed, at least at first, had to

be built in places with no zoning ordinances or done under special conditions. In the long term,

they knew that for New Urbanism to gain widespread traction, zoning ordinances across the

country needed to be changed.



15

As the value of the revival of traditional urban design philosophies gained a foothold in

urban planning circles, the New Urbanists’ call for zoning reform began to be heard as well.

From this call for reform, beginning around the year 2000, the modern Form-Based Codes

movement blossomed. Form-based codes are zoning codes that are modified in a thoughtful and

concerted attempt to fix the problems that Jane Jacobs (as noted above) and others identified

with conventional zoning. They are generally much less rigid about the uses of buildings or their

lots but are generally quite specific about the physical forms that buildings take and how they

relate to their surrounding environments. They are also prescriptive, stating specifically what the

code is asking for (often including photos as examples) as opposed to proscriptive, in which the

code states what is specifically not desired and allows any other outcome.

Where New Urbanism concerns itself with specific developments initiated by individual

developers, and generally has little influence outside of those development areas, form-based

codes seek to codify the stated aims of New Urbanism – walkable streets, promotion of density,

and enhancement of the public realm – into zoning codes that can be extensible to much larger

scales, in order to serve as the development rules for areas as small as one neighborhood or

development or as large as whole towns, cities, or regions.

New Urbanist developments generally only tangentially affect historic fabric that

surrounds them, by altering context. Form-based codes, on the other hand, have the potential to

directly affect the form new development takes within historic sections of cities. Thus, the

language and implications of form-based codes need to be watched carefully by preservationists

in order to ensure that changes to historic areas allowed by the code are in accordance with the

specific vision the community has in mind for the future of its historic resources.



16

Along with potential dangers, the rise of form-based codes also provides opportunities for

local historic preservation communities. If preservation communities make the necessary effort

to be included in the code’s development effort and process, the intent of form-based codes is to

take into account the viewpoints, goals, and needs of every major community interest that has a

stake in the community’s urban design philosophy, based on demands typically substantiated by

studies and field surveys, and then build those needs into the regulatory framework or process.

Thus, for example, by demonstrating a tendency for incompatible development to happen in

certain older areas that are not designated historic districts, preservationists could ask that the

new zoning code include regulations that require a level of design review to occur that typically

only occurs in historic districts be applied to these older non-designated neighborhoods as part of

zoning and enforced as part of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it could provide for some level of

conservation protection even for areas that do not qualify under a city’s requirements for creation

of a historic district or which have not been surveyed yet for historic resources. In addition, the

creation of form-based codes typically requires a physical survey by the code development team

in order to understand the urban environment their code is attempting to change or mimic.

Preservationists could potentially piggy-back a historic resources survey onto this survey process

and therefore better understand the physical environment in which they are working without

needing to exert the full amount of overhead that would typically be needed in order to launch

such a survey.

Organization of the Paper

This thesis is broken down into five main chapters. First, in Chapter 1, the history of

conventional zoning in the United States is briefly outlined in order to explain the innovations

that form-based codes introduce to planning practice. The problems with the existing zoning



17

framework are then examined and its detrimental effect on the maintenance of and development

within the existing built environment is explained to show why using form-based codes are so

important in light of the threats that preservationists face every day to the built environment.

Then, in Chapter 2, the New Urbanism movement is introduced as a reaction to conventional

development. Its primary components are identified, and the movement’s general attitudes

toward historic preservation are noted.

In Chapter 3, using New Urbanist principles as a basis, Form-based codes are introduced.

Their typical components are explained as is their typical process of implementation. The

common criticisms made toward them are discussed, and finally their implications for and

against the historic preservation movement are examined in depth. Chapter 4 presents a series of

three case studies, each examining an older American city that has enacted or is in the process of

enacting a form-based code that holds authority over significant amounts of historic fabric. The

impetuses for the codes’ development are discussed, the code development processes are

described, and the involvement in and reaction of the local preservation community to the new

codes is outlined.

Finally, in Chapter 5, the points discussed in the earlier chapters and the data gained in

Chapter 4 are compiled to develop a series of recommendations to be used by local preservation

communities in cities that develop form-based codes, to serve as a guide for preservationists to

ensure that all relevant concerns to historic preservation are being addressed by the new code.

Review of Literature

In the development of this thesis, three general caches of literature were used. Each of

three movements this thesis examines has its own library of literature. The largest is that of New

Urbanism, which has been rapidly expanding since the official founding of the Congress for the



18

New Urbanism in 1993, and to a lesser extent before that. The literature of the movement tends

to be dominated by a set of books and websites published by the firm most known for the

founding of the movement, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, and a close circle of practitioners

associated with the movement since its creation, such as Peter Katz. These works seem to strive

to market the movement in a unified way. The most influential work published by this

established group is Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American

Dream by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck (2000). The only work that

the movement has published that offers some criticism of its successes and failures is The

Seaside Debates, which captures a meeting by the practitioners held in 1998 in which they

reviewed each others’ work. Third-party critical literature on the movement is difficult to find in

book form, but has often appeared in urban planning journals. Perhaps the best critical source on

the movement is Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice by Jill

Grant (2006).

The form-based codes community is so young that fairly little has been written about it.

Despite the American Planning Association encouraging the use of form-based codes to some

extent beginning at its 2004 Conference16

, the few articles that have been published in

architecture and planning magazines tend to be announcements only of its adoption in a certain

municipality, though the library of resources is growing quickly. While the first form-based code

was developed for what is generally considered the first New Urbanist development, Seaside,

little consistent development on the idea occurred until the late 1990s. Since the form-based

coding movement became known as such and broke out on its own in the early 2000s, a series of

smaller manuals17

and one comprehensive book has been published, which describes in detail the

process of creating a code: Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers,



19

Municipalities, and Developers by Daniel G. Parolek, Karen Parolek, and Paul C. Crawford

(2008). No substantial critical literature on form-based coding yet exists. Criticism of codes is

generally done on a local level and is occasionally reported in local newspapers.

While the historic preservation movement has a large body of literature amassed over the

first forty years of its existence, very little writing exists relating it to New Urbanism and to the

problems of sprawl and even less to form-based coding. The best published work that touches on

the relationship between zoning, sprawl, preservation, and New Urbanism is Changing Places:

Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl by Richard Moe and Carter Wilkie (1997). A

Master’s thesis by Meredith Marsh of the University of Pennsylvania entitled “Striking the

Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street” compiles a wide-ranging survey of

the issues that confront preservation where it intersects with New Urbanism. On form-based

codes generally, a Master’s thesis in Urban and Regional Planning by Jason T. Burdette of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute entitled “Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called

Euclidean Zoning?” offers a well-reasoned overview. Nothing has been written up to this point

on the relationship between historic preservation and form-based codes. A white paper is under

development by Jim Lindberg of the Mountains/Plains office of the National Trust for Historic

Preservation tentatively entitled “Form Based Codes & Historic Preservation: An Opportunity

for Collaboration,” a draft of which was used as a reference for this thesis.

Because so little literature exists on the topic of this thesis at this time, much research

was done through the conducting of first-person interviews. Interviews were conducted with

several practitioners directly involved in the development of codes, as well as with members of

the preservation community, the city planning departments, and code-writing consultants in each

of the cities of which a case study was done.



20

Chapter 2.

Seeds for Change: New Urbanism

What is New Urbanism?

After decades of unchecked sprawl, a small group of designers founded what would become the

most influential anti-sprawl movement of the last three decades, called New Urbanism. It is a

coalition of professionals, primarily architects, planners, and attorneys that specialize in the

design of new towns and the redesign of urban spaces based on a set of urban design principles

that takes many cues from the type of development that was typically built in America pre-World

War II, but modifies those principles in order to take into account the realities of modern life

such as the ubiquity of the automobile. The most recent edition of the movement’s Best Practices

Guide puts it succinctly when it says “New Urbanism seeks to reclaim the living tradition of

urbanism and bring it up to date.”18

The Founding of New Urbanism

The movement that calls itself The New Urbanism19 is actually the fusing together of two

slightly older movements: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and Transit-Oriented

Development (TOD). The former movement was founded by Andres Duany and Elizabeth

Plater-Zyberk of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), based in Miami, Florida. Plater-

Zyberk was on the faculty of the architecture school at the University of Miami at the time and

Duany had been on it previously20, and so their ideas were disseminated through the student

body there, producing a generation of prominent New Urbanist architects.21

Their focus was on



21

the small-scale aspects of community design: the design of homes, business, and community

buildings and spaces and their relationship to the street network.

Transit-Oriented Development, on the other hand, was a movement based on the west

coast, spearheaded by architects Douglas Kelbaugh and Peter Calthrope. Their focus was on the

larger scale, the relationship of a community to the region, and choice in transportation mode.

In the early 1990s, Canadian billionaire Galen Weston provided the funds for a meeting

of the leaders of the two movements, and from this meeting was established the Congress for

New Urbanism, officially chartered in 1993.22

The intent was to create an organization that

would bind the identities of group of practitioners with similar attitudes toward urban

development together without limiting their creativity or fully solving their ideological

differences as working in the same office would require. The new organization would promote

“market-driven, community-responsive physical design at the scale of the region, the

neighborhood, and the single building that could drive the policy agenda of public action in the

entire country.”23

Terming the organization as a Congress intentionally mimics the CIAM (In

English, the International Congresses of Modern Architecture, founded 1928), known for its

association with Le Corbusier and the promotion of a modernist design agenda quite opposite of

what the CNU works toward. The reference is intended to channel the influence, not the ideas of

the former movement, though New Urbanism does carry some modernist ideas as part of its

dogma, such as the belief in the value of professional experts in urban planning and their power

to use design to solve some of the larger problems of society.

24

In order to fully develop the

professional lexicon from which the New Urbanist was to work, a series of four Congresses were

held over three years in order to discuss and establish each of the movement’s core principles,

with each year’s Congress focusing on a different scale of urban development. The results were



22

finally compiled, and then laid down in a Charter, which was officially adopted in 1996. (A copy

has been included in Appendix A)

New Urbanist Projects

The most widely-known early New Urbanist community is Seaside, in the panhandle of

Florida, completed in 1982. Developer Robert Davis was looking for a unique solution, and

Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk marketed to him the idea of a walkable community,

with a higher density than a conventional suburban development and the use of design elements

common in older American cities, such as front porches, rear alleys, and apartments over the

garage. The forms of the buildings were intended to be picturesque, above all, and their designs

are based directly on the study of buildings in older southern cities. The intent was to resurrect

the physical form of an old southern seaside community and, with it, resurrect a feeling of the

traditional values that stereotypically might have existed there25

In reality, however, Seaside was always intended as a resort community occupied for

only part of the year and, since its construction, property there has become so pricy as to make it

socioeconomically and ethnically homogeneous – thus, it bears little resemblance to the older

urban cities from which it takes inspiration. It is this resultant homogeneity that has often been

used as firepower against the spread of New Urbanism, and it has at times been called a tool for

gentrification. Especially where used in existing contexts, critics have at times blamed New

Urbanism for rising land values, the displacement of diverse or minority ethnic populations, and

the reduction in the availability of public housing.

(See Figure 3.)

26



23

Through the 1990s, New Urbanism slowly gained steam, with the completion of

prototype projects such as Kentlands in Gaithersburg, Maryland and the town of Celebration,

Florida, commissioned by Disney. By the late 1990s New Urbanism gained firm traction and this

new development type began to spread to the far corners of America. As of January 2004, the

last time a survey of projects was completed, there were 369 neighborhood-scale projects

completed or under construction in the United States with 279 more in planning.27

On one hand, New Urbanism has become a tool by which to redefine the form of

communities built on the urban fringe. New Urbanist subdivisions such as Civano, near Tucson

(see Figure 4), and Cornell, in Markham, Ontario, are said to be different from conventional

subdivisions or gated communities in that they incorporate higher-density housing types, take the

vernacular architecture and climate of the region into account, incorporate central public spaces

Figure 3. Seaside, Florida is the best known early New Urbanist development, meant to recreate

the nostalgia of older Southern communities through architecture and urban design.

Source: CoastalFamilyLiving.com



24

and buildings into the complex, and attempt to

establish a street grid that can be integrated into

neighborhood communities in the future,

promoting connectivity.28

On the other hand, a branch of the

movement is working toward the refilling of

decimated areas in existing cities using New

Urbanist principles. For example, in 1989

Urban Design Associates completed Crawford

Square, located directly adjacent to downtown

Pittsburgh, filling in what had previously been

open land that had been cleared for urban

renewal in the 1960s. Low-rise in scale and

suburban in amenities, the street network and density are intended to make it look like a

Pittsburgh neighborhood near downtown

29

New Urbanist principles are also commonly used in new developments built under the HOPE

VI program for the replacement of derelict and failed public housing, much but not all of it in

high-rise developments. In 1995, Henry Cisneros, then secretary of the Department for Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) officially partnered with the Congress for the New Urbanism,

stating in a press release that “All of us at [HUD] are committed…to the goal of livable, mixed-

use neighborhoods built to a human scale. This is consistent with the principles of the New

(see Figure 5.) Crawford Square was built partially

using low-income housing tax credits, and so most of its units were rent-subsidized upon

opening.

Figure 4. Civano, a New Urbanist communitynear Tucson takes climate and native

landforms into account as part of its urban

design, and uses double houses as a way to

increase the density above that seen in a

typical suburban subdivision.

Source: Terrain.org



25

Urbanism – and, yes, we strongly

support this approach because

we’ve seen that it works.” Building

on this commitment, the Congress

for the New Urbanism appointed an

Inner-City Task Force and

developed a set of Principles for

Inner City Neighborhood Design

that were intended to help guide the

application of New Urbanism in the

revitalization of distressed urban areas.30

A community where a HOPE VI grant was used in order to foster the redevelopment of a

former high-rise public housing site into a new mixed-use community is the former site of Flag

House Courts in Baltimore, which was imploded in 2001. The new neighborhood, dubbed

Albemarle Square and completed in 2005, includes 336 housing units, 192 of them affordable

built on 14.5 acres. The community is developed around a stretch of Lombard Street that was

vibrant until mid-century and still houses three Jewish delis, a remnant of its history as a Jewish

community. In order to revitalize this commercial street, the new housing was developed around

it, intended to recreate a population to frequent the retail along that strip. The surrounding

historic fabric is mainly of the red brick rowhouse type, so most new buildings also derive from

that, but many varieties are introduced to keep the streetscape interesting. Materials used in the

façades of the new buildings are limestone and brick, identical to the older architecture. Most of

the neighborhood is new construction, but several historic structures were worked into the master

Figure 5. Crawford Square, Pittsburgh. While deeply

suburban in its aesthetic and amenities, this early New

Urbanist development deserves credit for being one of the

first to tackle the challenges of an inner-city development environment.

Source: Deitrick and Ellis



26

plan and some existing buildings were adaptively-reused as part of the community. The former

street grid was re-introduced through the site, linking historic communities on each side, but

some public spaces were strategically introduced within the project, as well, including one space,

elliptical in plan, that was meant to hold a piece of public art31

(See Figure 6.)

Figure 6. Albemarle Square, a New Urbanist neighborhood in Baltimore. The new buildings on

the right were designed to merge as seamlessly as possible with the historic buildings remaining

in the neighborhood, at left.

Source: Marsh

In the Manchester neighborhood of Pittsburgh, the New Urbanist label has also been used to

describe scattered-site infill of HOPE VI housing units in an existing and mostly intact urban

neighborhood. When New Urbanism is used for the development of infill at the scale of the

single building, there is little to define a structure as New Urbanist, except for its relationship

with the street and the use of elements on the façade to provide interest to passersby. In this case,



27

the new buildings were designed to harmonize with the older buildings by being built up to the

street, three-stories tall, and constructed of red brick. Parking is placed at the rear of the lots.32

In some dense, older cities such as Chicago and New York, building up to the lot line and

engaging the street is an assumed feature of most new buildings. In most American cities and

nearly all its suburbs, however, this is a building typology that has been lost in new construction,

so New Urbanist design serves to reinforce the urban design traditions of America’s existing and

treasured older urban fabric. However, as will be noted in the next chapter, physically recreating

the forms of older urban fabric is often illegal under modern zoning codes.

Theoretical Basis of New Urbanism

While there are many aspects and scales to the philosophies for urban design that New Urbanism

espouses, the principle focus areas in New Urbanist design are:

• Enclosure of the public realm. This refers to the creation of interesting, flat street walls

that are tall enough to create a sense of enclosure for pedestrians within it. The premise is

that part of the problem with being a pedestrian in a suburban environment is that the

wide-open spaces and lack of finely-grained context provide for a very boring walk. The

importance of this idea actually stems from urbanist Jane Jacobs in her masterpiece work

The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs is an author to which New

Urbanism and lovers of good urban design in general owe a great debt.

• The Neighborhood. New Urbanism defines this as the area within a five-minute walk, or

a quarter-mile from a location. Neighborhoods are thought of as nuclei for towns and

cities, but they also must have a sense of self-sufficiency and an inner connectivity

through their road and sidewalk network. Unusual points in the road network are to be

used to frame civic or commercial buildings designed to integrate with the neighborhood.



28

• The Transect. This theoretical concept was originally developed in the ecological

community to describe different natural habitats but was adopted by the New Urbanism

movement as a way to classify humanity’s built environment. Purportedly modified for

urban design use through years of observing real urban environments in established

cities, it is visualized as a continuum of urbanism, ranging from the completely natural

(Transect Zone 1, or T1) to Suburban areas (T3) to the most urban of areas, the Urban

Core, referring to the densest districts in a city (T6). Areas that do not fit specifically

within that continuum of urbanism, such as heavy-industrial areas and university

campuses are given their own zone on the transect, called the Special District (SD). Any

type of object that might be included in the built environment can be assigned a relevant

zone on the transect – ie. a wooden fence would stereotypically be thought of as more

rural or suburban, so it would be in one of the lower-numbered zones. Duany Plater-

Zyberk describes the concept thus: “The Transect arranges in useful order the elements of

urbanism by classifying them from rural to urban. Every urban element finds a place

within its continuum.” (see Figure 7)

• The Block. This is another concept derived from the writings of Jane Jacobs. It states that

the length and perimeter of blocks should be limited, to allow for the pedestrian to get

from one point to another in the neighborhood more efficiently, without going out of their

way.

• “Frontages”. This term is a piece of jargon commonly used in New Urbanism that refers

to how a building addresses the street in front of it. This is encouraged to be an entry

element derived from traditional urban neighborhoods, such as a front porch or a raised

stoop. Frontage also refers to components of the building’s façade that faces onto the



29

street: for example, how much glass is provided to allow for transparency between the

sidewalk and the interior of the retail space.

Figure 7. The Transect is an ecological concept that New Urbanists use to describe a

continuum of urban design, referred to as T-zones, ranging from very dense and built up

(T6) to rural (T1.) Each T-zone represents an appropriate building height, sidewalk

width, road width, etc.

Source: ThinkorThwim.com

• Street Design. New Urbanist philosophy argues that street widths commonly seen in

older cities, typically with nine foot driving lanes instead of the twelve that is common

today33, will calm traffic and are more appropriate to human-scaled environments. It also

encourages parallel or diagonal parking on the street, which can serve as a barrier

between traffic and pedestrians. This also encompasses aspects of landscape design, such

as street trees, planters, and pavement types.34

Marketing Claims of New Urbanism

In order to understand the appeal of New Urbanism, it is important to understand how it

markets itself in its most established form, completely new developments in the suburbs. Many

of these same tactics are used when a New Urbanist development is established in older urban



30

environment and, in fact, many of the claims, especially the advantages of walkability, are much

better substantiated in established urban environments.

New Urbanism markets itself quite differently from the conventional suburban development

patterns that it seeks to replace. It makes specific claims about the potential of living in a New

Urbanist community to affect the residents’ daily lives, some of them substantiated by fact, some

less so.

New Urbanist developments are usually marketed as providing a better “quality of life.” This

implies that more is being sold to the buyer than the house itself. It includes access to a series of

civic buildings and parks that will be part of the development, but more than that, it implies

buying into a sense of community, in which one knows one’s neighbors and is involved in events

and activities with them. It markets itself as an opposite to the perceived anonymity of a

conventional suburban development.35

Urban planner Emily Talen notes there is no empirical proof that New Urbanism creates

community. In fact, studies have shown that community can, in fact, exist in conventional

suburbia, which New Urbanist philosophy denies.

36 Nonetheless, it is a powerful marketing tool

and it is likely that creating more opportunities for interaction does, in some cases, beget the

desired interaction between residents. Jill Grant takes this relationship of linking community to

physical design further and argues that New Urbanist communities are examples of the

movement’s adherence to spatial (physical) determinism, in which human success and failure is

directly influenced by the physical environment the person inhabits. It is a philosophy that the

urban design philosophies of Le Corbusier adhered to, in essence allowing architects and urban

designers to believe they can be social engineers and solve society’s ills, and Grant argues that



31

New Urbanism is adhering to these philosophies as well.37

Emily Talen echoes her point and

notes that “physical determinism has never been morally or practically supportable.” 38

New Urbanist developments claim to be more walkable than a conventional suburban

development. They provide parks, a community space, and sometimes schools, retail space, and

telecommuting work space within easy walking distance (the rule of thumb being one-quarter

mile) from each residence. That walkability is created by narrower streets, smaller block size, a

consistent grid of streets, smaller lots, and interest added to the facades of buildings along the

way. The benefits of walkability are less traffic in the community, “eyes on the street” providing

security for children and adults on the street, and health benefits arising from more walking.

Generally, it is true that it is possible and pleasant to walk within the development to the

amenities that the development provides, but these are limited to community spaces and perhaps

a small grocery store. However, because they are often located in suburban locations, the

availability and quality of public transportation services nearby varies. If a New Urbanist

community is not built along high-quality public transit infrastructure, then residents of the

development are still completely dependent on their automobiles to get to work and to obtain any

goods not available within the development.39

Even when located with access to public transit,

there is no unambiguous proof that this decreases automobile use by residents of the

development.40

Another aspect of New Urbanist marketing is a promotion of ethnic diversity within the

development. While conventional suburban developments generally cater to a very small slice of

the income range and offer only larger houses for sale, New Urbanist communities offer many

Walking within the community cuts the number of automobile trips a family

must make only slightly, and it does not address the problem of isolation that children and

teenagers generally associate with conventional suburbia.



32

housing options, ranging from apartments to rowhouses to single family houses. In theory, this

variety of options should attract different types of buyers, from different income ranges. In

reality at current, though, New Urbanism has a cachet that makes all options in a new

development quite expensive, which severely limits the diversity of new residents there.

Generally, New Urbanist developments are filled with affluent white professionals, with little

income diversity unless there is an affordable or public housing component to the project.41

Finally, there is the argument that, even in a suburban environment, New Urbanism provides

a high-quality streetscape, thus creating a higher-quality environment that would otherwise have

been developed. This is true, and in order to do so, the developer needs to be willing to break

some conventions, such as adding alleys and alley-facing garages and developing more than

three or four stock designs. The result, though, is still a relatively single-use suburban

environment.

Relationship between New Urbanism and Historic Preservation

The relationship between historic preservation and New Urbanism is uneven.

Technically, the two movements are working toward the same goals: realization of the

recognition of the value inherent in the fabric of older American communities. Both movements

seek to revitalize or keep the older urban neighborhoods and small town fabric of America strong

and vibrant, but this is the primary concern of preservationists whereas it is of only secondary

concern to New Urbanists. New Urbanists primarily use America’s existing urban fabric as

models to be inspired by when creating new places. In Suburban Nation, the book that

introduced New Urbanism to the masses, Andrés Duany states: “By emulating the past, a number

of recent projects have demonstrated that designers can make new places that are as impressive

as the towns which inspired them.”42



33

The problem with this is that these new places compete with the older fabric they mimic

and potentially take away investment that could go to older neighborhoods. Duany reconciles

this problem by stating: “Why build a new neighborhood than move into an older one that can

benefit from the new arrivals? Because sprawl is happening no matter what, so a way to start

moving in a better direction is to make sure that new neighborhoods are built in a better way.” 43

The Charter of the New Urbanism specifically includes support of historic preservation

efforts as part of the movement’s premise. A concern for preservation of historic built fabric is

mentioned twice in the Charter’s first two paragraphs:

It also plays into the American obsession with cheap novelty: rather than buy an old house and

have to add air conditioning and a dishwasher, a prospective homeowner can buy what looks like

an old house, but it comes with these modern conveniences already built in. Sadly, it is not built

of the same quality materials the old house is, however, and so is not as durable, which the new

owner learns later.

44

The Congress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the

spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income,environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the

erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated community-building

challenge.

We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent

metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communitiesof real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural

environments, and the preservation of our built legacy.

The Charter also mentions preservation as the last separate bullet point under the heading

“The block, the street, and the building:”

Preservation and renewal of historic buildings, districts, and landscapes affirm the

continuity and evolution of urban society.



34

Preservation is mentioned as only one of many concerns that are part of the premise for

the establishment of New Urbanism, to be sure, but it is important to note that it is theoretically

an aspect of the New Urbanist agenda. However, in a 1999 article in Preservation magazine,

statements by Stewart Brand, author of How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re

Built , suggest a somewhat different view of the preservation movement:

I suggest embarrassment should be the preservation stance toward other currentmovements. Preservationists should have been at the forefront of New Urbanist

ideas, meetings, and practice 10 years ago. I was around some of that – close

friend of Peter Calthorpe when he devised “pedestrian pockets” and “walkable

communities”; worked on a new-town charrette with AndresDuany…Preservationists were never mentioned in those meetings except by me:

They were considered irrelevant.

45

Andres Duany wrote a response to this article, which also included criticisms of the movement

by other prominent urbanists and preservationists. In it, he states:46

…The new traditional houses are traditional only in the superficial sense that they

are old looking (from a distance.) … In fact, you will find that nothing ishandmade; all is light-weight and industrialized … Needless to say, it is infinitely

more modern than the Luddite-Ruskinian technology of hand-applied plaster,

hand-worked metals, oiled wood, and cut stone (as if we were still living incaves), produced by the tiny, fashionable architectural avant-garde…we do

acknowledge that it is an authentic manifestation of the complexities and

contradictions of modern life…Shouldn’t a false vinyl mullion snapped onto avacuum-paned window be considered the very epitome of the modern condition?

Duany’s response is specifically written in response to a reaction to New Urbanism that

former New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable makes in the article: “I hate

being forced to choose between hideous sprawl and pre-approved nostalgia – the real awful and

the awful unreal.” Duany replies to her statement by trying to show how modern New Urbanist

buildings really are behind all their traditional facades, thereby supposedly disavowing the belief

that New Urbanism is nostalgic (though, in reality a sense of nostalgia is one of New Urbanism’s



35

biggest selling points.) In his many words, though, Duany shows other aspects of his attitude

toward old architecture clearly as well, one of which is a general disrespect for the value of older

technologies and full embrace of contemporary industrialized construction techniques. Aside

from showing that he doesn’t know his audience very well, since this was written for

Preservation magazine, it shows a general disregard for the value of older methods.

Duany’s attitude is only one among the many widely-varied practitioners that are part of

New Urbanism, some of whom have more preservation-sensitive backgrounds 47

, but as its de-

facto spokesman, his statements do carry weight. Thus, if his statements are any sign of the

movement’s prevailing philosophy toward preservation, then the movements should not

necessarily be assumed to be in step with each other. This underlies the importance of

preservationists being influential in the furthering of New Urbanist philosophies in the future.

Perhaps the most potentially influential of those is form-based coding.



36

Chapter 3.

Seeds for Wide-Spread Change:

The Premise of Form-Based Codes

What are Form Based Codes?

The Form Based Codes Institute defines Form-Based Codes this way:

Form-Based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm

by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principlefor the code. They are regulations, not mere guidelines. They are adopted into cityor county law. Form-based codes are an alternative to conventional zoning.48

Form-based codes are a way for communities to plan for their future, either in terms of more

sustainable new development or preserving the positive features of their community as it is, and

then almost directly transfer that vision into law, so that the plans are executed as ideally as

possible.

Like their name suggests, form based codes regulate the physical form that development

takes, which is in contrast to conventional zoning, which typically only regulates what the use of

a building can be that is developed on a parcel of land. This is not to say that form-based codes

completely eschew use, but it is not the primary focus of the code. Generally, a large number of

potential uses are allowable on any given parcel under a form-based code. In this sense, form-

based codes are less restrictive than conventional zoning.

Conventional zoning, however, does little to regulate the physical form of potential

development. The massing of buildings is specified through several indirect mechanisms. One of

these is a number called floor-area ratio (FAR). Floor-area ratio allows a certain maximum



37

square footage of development per square foot of lot area. The problem is that, in order to build a

massive building that is non-contextual with its surroundings, a developer need merely assemble

a very large lot, and then a large building will be allowed as of right. Other conventional zoning

mechanisms commonly used are height limits and setbacks. These mechanisms typically

employed by conventional zoning represent only very blunt, non-specific tools in order to

regulate development and calibrate to its context, and so the form-based codes movement seeks

to imbue zoning codes with more detailed and specific mechanisms in order to allow zoning to

be more specific to its context.

Marketed Advantages of Form-Based Codes

The form-based codes movement markets them as a tool with several advantages over

conventional zoning codes:

• Unlike conventional zoning codes, which are proscriptive - they specify what cannot be

built - form-based codes are prescriptive, stating what the community does want, down to

whatever level of detail is desired, and discourage other types of development.

Conventional zoning uses floor-area ratio (FAR), height limits, and setbacks to control

building massing, but these are not specific enough to give a high enough level of design

control.

• Form-based codes attempt to encode the preferences of a community through an open

public process during development, in order to build consensus about its intent and make

community members have a stake in the new code, and therefore lessen community

resistance to proposed new developments.

• Form-based codes allow for what the community wants to be clearly laid out, and

therefore lengthy design review negotiations are no longer necessary between city



38

planners and developers, to ensure that the developer is providing the building form that

the city wants. This allows faster turnaround times, less staff time, less wasted expense

by the developer, and more predictability of plan review outcomes for the developer. It

also ensures greater predictability in the design of buildings built in the community.

• Because they are based on a study of the existing place and based on perceptions,

opinions, and visions for the future of the place expressed by its citizens during a public

process, form-based codes are intended and able to be unique and catered to a

community’s existing “DNA” and so are place-specific.

• Unlike Design Guidelines, which have been used to govern matters of architecture and

form in towns up to this point but are usually not law, form-based codes are adopted as

law, so they have teeth. This makes them more enforceable. Even when design guidelines

are encoded as laws, they are often not as specific as to the desired end result as form-

based codes are, which at least theoretically makes the end result of form-based codes

more controlled and predictable. 49

• Before the name “form-based codes” was coined in 2001 by Carol Wyant, one of the

founders of the Form-Based Codes Institute (and a reviewer of this thesis)

50

, they were

known as “graphical codes.” Unlike conventional zoning codes, which are typically

dense documents comprised of almost exclusively text, form-based codes lay down their

requirements using a series of graphics and diagrams. The intent is to make them easier to

use by members of the community who have no professional training in design,

architecture, or law and to visually demonstrate requirements and provisions where

applicable in order to avoid ambiguities inherent in text-based codes.



39

History of Form-Based Coding

Form-based codes are not a modern concept. Similar ideas were used as early as the 13 th

century in Siena, Italy, when by 1297 the city government had enacted an ordinance governing

the design of the urban palaces facing the city’s main square, the Piazza del Campo, and required

the windows in those palaces to be identical to those in the City Hall. A similar ordinance was

put in place in London after its Great Fire in 1666 that destroyed its medieval core. It required

straight, paved streets and buildings with uniform cornice lines, and became the system of

building control that regulated urban design in London through the 19th

century. During the reign

of Louis XIV, Paris had regulations requiring that all new buildings respect the street alignment

and that specified details such as the solid-to-void ratio of building facades, the continuity of

eave lines from one building to the next, and the depth of courtyards in building plans.51

America’s older cities never had form-based codes, but during the first two centuries of

America’s development, its major cities attempted to model themselves on those of Europe, and

so in essence the codes of Europe likely unofficially governed American urban design, as well.

The necessity of dense, compact development due to the lack of reliable transportation until the

late 19th

century reinforced this.

Thus,

during the eras during which they underwent their major rebuilding campaigns that resulted in

the defined urban forms that we know them for today, the great cities of Europe had in place

codes not unlike modern-day form-based codes.

For a variety of reasons explored in Chapter 1, zoning was quickly adopted in cities in

America during the 1920s but beginning with “white flight” in the 1950s, conventional zoning

became a prime instigator of large swaths of automobile-centered low-density tract housing that

expanded in ever larger rings around city centers just as the city centers themselves decayed. The



40

first attempts to reform conventional zoning codes occurred during the late 1970s and early

1980s, when New York City and San Francisco brought back requirements that streets and plaza

spaces be defined by continuous street walls of building facades. At the time, these cities also

adopted a design review process and a series of urban design guidelines for integration into new

buildings, the implementation of which were negotiated on a case-by-case basis between the

developer and the city.52

Perhaps the first modern form-based code was developed for the community of Seaside,

Florida, the same community that is generally credited as the beginning of New Urbanism. The

aspect of its location that allowed Seaside to be developed innovatively was that Walton County,

Florida, did not have a planning department at the time, and therefore had no zoning regulations

in place.

These were not full form-based codes, in the contemporary sense, but

included many of the same elements. Outside these large cities, however, single-use zoning

codes that had been adopted during the middle decades of the 20th

century continued to be in

widespread use (and continue to be, even in the second decade of the 21

st

century).

53

The architecture of Seaside was to be inspired by the vernacular architecture of Southern

towns:

(See Figure 8)

Duany and his wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, initially set out to design all the

town’s buildings themselves. But once the true scale of the project becameevident, they realized that such a high level of design control would not be

possible, or even desirable. Instead, they handed off the design responsibility to

the lot purchasers, or their architects. That decision led to a new challenge –

finding a way to impart a distinctive character to specific areas within the

development…

The first Seaside code established a hierarchy of seven (later expanded to eight)‘classes’ of buildings for use in the new community. Each class was based on a

traditional Southern vernacular building type. The code specified the rudimentary

physical characteristics of each class, controlling siting on the lot, building height,location of porches and outbuildings, how parking should be handled, etc.



41

After the firm’s experience at Seaside, Duany Plater-Zyberk adapted form-based

codes to work within the legal framework of a planned unit-development. TheKentlands in Gaithersburg, MD, is one early example of that application. Since

1989, when its plan and code were created in a highly-publicized charrette, Duany

Plater-Zyberk has crafted similar documents to regulate the build-out of over 200

new and existing communities.

54

Most form-based codes are adopted by

governments and regulated as laws, but the code for

Seaside was created for the private developer behind

Seaside and some continue to be today. At times,

codes are also created by developers and then passed

into law by local governments.55

One of the first uses of a form-based code to

govern the infill of a large-scale master plan in an

existing context was the Master Plan and Form-Based

Code for the center of Kendall, Florida, a

southwestern suburb of Miami. Developed by Dover,

Kohl & Partners of Miami, this code, which was

adopted in 1999, was designed to densify, urbanize,

and establish a walkable environment in what had

become a stereotypical auto-centric suburban retail

and office node. It was centered on one of the

region’s largest malls, Dadeland, but it was also located at the end of the Metrorail line from

downtown Miami, which gave it great potential for transit-oriented development.

56The code was

created as a way to implement the Master Plan that Dover, Kohl & Partners developed and aimed

Figure 8. The Urban Code of Seaside

was a simple, one page diagrammatic

document meant to convey the design

intents of the architect in order to create

a cohesive community aesthetically.

Source: Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford



42

to ensure that: buildings were built along the streets with most parking located behind; buildings

were built tall enough to help create a sense of enclosures and spaces with an urban character;

buildings were to have a vertical mix of uses; buildings were to have a rich variety of

architectural styles and detailing; and that sidewalks were to be wider, incorporated into building

designs, and covered for protection from the Florida sun57

(see Figure 9.) A year later, in 2000,

the first version of the SmartCode was released by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. As

discussed below, the SmartCode was intended to be a template to make it less of a custom

process, and thus more convenient and less labor-intensive, for individual communities to adopt

an effective form-based code.

Figure 9. In the mid-1990s, Kendall was an auto-oriented retail node in the suburbs of Miami.

The plan for its revitalization involved a complete rethinking of the land to include canals,

dense development, and strong integration with the existing but incongruous transit

infrastructure.

Source: Dover, Kohl & Partners



43

Figure 10. The Columbia Pike form-based code was designed to help in the redevelopment and

re-densification of a historic road that had become a nondescript retail corridor in Arlington,

Virginia. It is often held up as a successful example of a form-based code because redevelopment

followed the adoption of the code very quickly.

Source: Dover, Kohl & Partners

A second well-known form-based code that was used to refurbish and encourage infill on

an existing auto-oriented retail strip is the code for Columbia Pike, in Arlington, Virginia,

adopted in 2003. A historic road in a heavily-developed county that served as the area’s main

arterial, Columbia Pike had developed in the same generic way as suburban retail strips

everywhere else in the country.58 In order to develop a new vision for the corridor, a series of

public meetings was held and a direction was deduced for the corridor’s future. It specifically

focused on redeveloping three nodes along the corridor with dense, mixed-use structures.59

The

code was adopted as a parallel zoning code to the existing zoning along the corridor. Columbia

Pike is often used as an example for the potential successes of form-based codes because

redevelopment on the corridor quickly followed the adoption of the form-based code, so much so

that officials are worried that new redevelopment along the corridor may be allowing land values



44

there to increase too quickly.60

A new streetcar is currently planned for the corridor61

and the

process leading to a new form-based code for the areas between the nodes is set to begin in

summer of 201162

Most relevant to preservationists is the application of form-based codes to existing urban

neighborhoods or existing downtowns. Form-based codes are often seen as a practical way to

shine a spotlight on a district and so show the city’s interest in promoting reinvestment there,

whether it be a faded mid-century commercial strip or a shuttered historic downtown. An

example would be Broad Avenue in Memphis, where reinvestment began as soon as interest was

focused on it, even before a new land use strategy was actually adopted there.

(see Figure 10.)

63

The SmartCode: Overview

For municipalities that seek to adopt a form-based code, they may elect to use an existing

template code and then calibrate it to their needs. The template code currently available for this

purpose is the SmartCode. It was developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk and originally released in

2000. As of early 2011, it is in version 9.2 and has been available “open source” for download

and use by municipalities free of charge since 2004. 64 Along with the complete code, a modified

subset called the Neighborhood Conservation Code is available.65

The SmartCode: Sections

The NCC does not include the

chapters on Regional Plans and the development of New Communities and therefore provides

only the sections that a community needs to develop infill standards for an existing built-up area.

The SmartCode is envisioned as a fully Comprehensive Code, which would replace not

only a community’s zoning code but also its master plan, signage, and landscaping ordinances as

well. However, in many cases, these existing ordinances are left active, so those sections can be

removed from the code.



45

The SmartCode is divided into seven sections, or “articles”. Three of these are

administrative and the remainder represent the four different scales of development that a code

could regulate. The sections that SmartCode provides include generally the same information

that a custom code would and more, since it aims to be comprehensive, but it is organized in a

different manner. Like most form-based codes, the SmartCode uses the transect as its organizing

principle when specifying what types of development to allow in what locations.

The administrative articles are 1,6, and 7. Article 1 is mandatory for all SmartCodes and

includes provisions related to the implementation, purpose, authority, and process of the

SmartCode. Article 7 includes definitions specific to the code, which are typically boilerplate but

certain terms may be added and deleted depending on the scope of the code. Article 6 contains

certain tables of measurements that can also be altered as necessary consistent with other

sections of the code.

Section 2 is reserved for implementation of a regional-scale plan, referred to as a “sector-

scale plan.” If the form-based code is intended to regulate the entire municipality or an area

larger than that, this section of the code is provided and includes large-scale provisions.

Section 3 includes provisions to regulate new development on greenfield sites. This

article is generally included, except when the community wants to only regulate infill into

existing built-up areas with the form-based code.

Section 4 includes provisions to regulate infill development in built-up areas. This is

included in the code if the community seeks to regulate this type of development with the code.

Finally, Section 5 regulates at the level of the block, street, and individual building. It

specifies building configuration, location on its lot, and functions, as well as signage and

landscaping requirements. This section also specifies street design requirements and



46

measurements of blocks. In essence, this article is the core of the code and includes the elements

that are most commonly associated with inclusion in a form-based code. 66

Form-Based Coding and Master Plans

Many communities elect not to use the SmartCode as they or their code consultants prefer

to have the flexibility of working from scratch, which allows a code to be better tailored to the

unique character and needs of different communities.

In order to develop a code, the community should preferably have a master plan and must

have a specific vision for its future, though part of the development process for the code involves

investigating that urban design vision and determining its specific traits on a building and street-

level basis. A form-based code essentially codifies that vision and lets the community enforce it.

It is interesting to note that a form-based code is only a framework and could technically be used

to codify any type of development, even the conventional suburban cul-de-sac development that

is falling out of favor today. The codes are generally used to codify walkable neighborhoods,67

Development of Form-Based Codes

but their inherent flexibility is a strength, because it is impossible to know what type of

development they will be required to regulate in the future.

The process of implementing a form-based code is deeply dependent on the vision and

needs of a community. The intent is to bring out either the existing or envisioned character of a

place where it already exists and create or recreate it where it does not. This is done through a

long series of public meetings, with the belief that enough public process will get the community

members to develop a consensus on the community’s future. When the citizens have a stake in

the development of the zoning code and understand its intent, they have more faith in the

outcome of development that it regulates.



47

The code development process begins by documenting the existing conditions in a

community. This begins on a macro-scale by making a site visit and looking at topographical

maps and street maps, in order to understand the layout, transportation corridors, and the centers

of neighborhoods. A more detailed documentation visit is then made in which existing building

types, their scales, setbacks, materials, orientation, relationship to each other, etc., is studied.

Once the existing urban fabric is understood, then a code can be designed to replicate or improve

it.

The code team then makes a thorough reading of the previous planning documents

developed for the community, which would include master plans, preservation plans, traffic

studies, and others. Education sessions are also held to explain to the community what form-

based codes are and how they work.

The culmination of all this research is the formal beginning of the public outreach

process. Generally, but not always, this comes in the form of an urban design “charrette.” A

charrette is a four-day to week-long session in which a group of professionals with different

specialties is brought in. The specialties would include design professionals such as architects,

engineers, and urban planners but might also include specialists such as transportation and

economic development consultants. The idea is to have instant feedback from a knowledgeable

professional as to whether a proposed idea would work or not, and if not, why not. The

professionals meet with the primary stakeholders in the community for some of the time and the

rest of their time is spent working on the design in an open environment in which members of the

community can wander in when they are available and offer suggestions to the design team.

The result is at least two presentations of ideas during the course of the charrette, so that

community members can see the immediate result of their ideas and get excited about what the



48

future of their community. Generally, a staff member talented in making watercolor renderings

or computer renderings is among the charrette crew so that ideas can be easily visualized even by

community members not well-versed in the communication tools of the architectural profession.

Using these visual media, a vision for the potential result of a code is sometimes presented to the

community using graphics representing the “before” state and several steps in the potential

positive evolution of the corridor due to the code. A company that specializes in the creation of

this type of computer renderings is UrbanAdvantage.68

After the charrette is complete, the team works to refine the code based on the input they

got from the community and its stakeholders, and begins to solidify the code into a well-

organized set of standards that can become regulation.

Types of Form-Based Codes

Form-based codes can be developed around different organizing principles. By far the

most common is the Transect. In order to specify what types of development a community wants

to have, it first divides its current self, or its vision of a different future self, into areas based on

proposed levels of development intensity. Note that these may or may not be referred to as zones

T1 through T6 that New Urbanism defines as the zones of the transect. They may alternatively

be organized by names such as “downtown” or by some other naming convention that makes

sense in the context of the community. Once the intensity zones are identified, then differing

building forms, parking requirements, requirements for public space, even road widths, are

defined differently for these varying levels.

Typical Sections of a Custom Form-Based Code

A custom form-based code is typically made up of several sections. Some are

administrative, which include information on how the code is adopted, what sections of the



49

community it regulates, and what the procedures for approval of a project are, as well as

background information on the code and a glossary of terms specific to form-based zoning. The

actual standards in the code are typically broken up into the following sections, though each code

is different: a Regulating Plan, Public Space Standards, Form Standards, Frontage Type

Standards, Block Standards, Building Type Standards, and Architectural Standards. Again,

depending on what aspects of its built environment the community is seeking to regulate and

depending on how prescriptive it wants to be, sections may be omitted or added to these.

The Regulating Plan is a replacement for the zoning map of a conventional code. The

regulating plan maps what transect zone and zoning designation each lot in the community fits

into. For completeness, it often also specifies location requirements for parking or its absence on

each block. Taking a cue from older cities, zones generally transition at alleys between blocks in

order to ensure that streets are zoned for the same type of development on both sides. 69

Public Space Standards regulate the communally-owned spaces in the city. The largest

public space in any city are the streets and sidewalks, so these codes regulate the allowable

widths and materials of sidewalks, traffic lanes, parallel parking lanes, plantings, etc., in street

Usually,

each lot in the municipality is assigned a zone type, as is typically done in conventional zoning,

and that zone type is marked on the lot on the Regulating Plan. These codes are referred to as

“lot-based.” However, some codes (those created by code consultancy firm Ferrell Madden

Associates) are frontage-based, which means that the form standards that apply to those

buildings are based on what street they face onto, and so the streets are marked with zoning

designations on the Regulating Plan rather than the lots. An example of a code like this would be

the Heart of Peoria Land Development Code, developed for Peoria, Illinois. (For comparison, see

Appendix C)



50

designs. The intent is to make thoroughfares comfortable for pedestrians and make usability for

automobiles a secondary concern. Adding parallel or diagonal parking, decreasing the width of

traveling lanes, and decreasing curb radii do wonders to slow traffic and make a community

hospitable for pedestrians. Form-based codes also generally allow public alleys and encourage

their use to access residential garages.70

The core of any form-based code is the Building Form Standards. These specify the

placement of buildings, their heights and massing, parking requirements, placement in relation to

the street, allowable uses, allowable streetscape frontage types, and allowable “building types” in

a zone. Per the philosophy behind form-based codes, these requirements vary widely by

community and intended development intensity (transect zone), but in the more urban zones,

codes typically require buildings to be built up to the sidewalk, have retail at street level if

possible and appropriate, and be of a height consistent or contextual with adjacent or nearby

buildings. Codes also typically disallow surface parking lots to be placed right up against the

sidewalk, dividing buildings from sidewalks, as street frontage is valued for use by pedestrians as

is the ability for pedestrians to be able to enter buildings without needing to pass through an

This section of the regulations has limited applicability

for historic preservation specifically, but having narrow and walkable streets is a necessary

component of retaining the historic character of older sections of most cities. The inclusion of

standards regulating streets is also a way in which form-based codes differ from conventional

zoning codes. Typically, streets are under the control of one city department while private

development is under the regulation of another, and efforts to improve one of them is rarely

coordinated with the other. Recognizing that buildings and the public spaces onto which they all

face are inextricably linked, form-based codes often including regulation of both these aspects of

the urban environment.



51

auto-oriented space. Parking requirements are significantly reduced compared to conventional

zoning in the more urban transect zones and buildings are allowed and encouraged to take

advantage of street parking where applicable. When parking lots are required, they must be

placed behind buildings in the middle of blocks and, in some cases, may be shared between

several adjacent buildings operated by different owners. The code also allows certain elements,

such as awnings, canopies, front stoops and porches, etc., to encroach into the setback area and,

in some cases, into the public right-of-way.71

Frontage Type standards are a set of regulations that specify the form building facades

take as they front onto public streets. This applies in terms of two-dimensional regulation, such

as the solid-to-transparent ratio of materials in the façade, but it also allows or disallows and

regulates three-dimensional elements on the front of the building such as porches, stoops,

galleries, front stairs, etc.

For sample excerpts of several form-based codes,

see Appendix D.

72

If they are developed for construction of a greenfield community, form-based codes can

include Block Standards. These specify the length and perimeter of blocks. This is in order to

make for efficient traffic flow and many walking routes through the neighborhood

73

Depending on the specificity of regulation desired, the code can also include Building

Type Standards. Many communities have trademark building types, perhaps having gained

prominence in the past due to the size of lots or previous regulations, such as courtyard

apartment buildings, split-level houses, etc. The code can include lists of these typical types of

buildings and allow and disallow their construction in different transect zones. In order to allow a

, taken from

Jane Jacobs’s belief in the value of short blocks in walkable communities. This type of regulation

has little relation to historic preservation.



52

building type, it has to be thoroughly described, including example pictures, and then regulations

given including how many entrances, how far apart, which interior rooms are placed along the

street, etc.74

The most prescriptive set of standards that can be included in a form-based code are

Architectural Standards. These are similar to the architectural design covenants that many

suburban developments have in place. The potential specificity of Architectural Standards varies

widely. A less restrictive set might include rules of façade composition and materials to be used,

but more restrictive elements would include the location and type of windows and doors, and

color palettes. The architectural style of new buildings can be specified and a set of architectural

details can even be provided, in order to ensure that new buildings match the detailing of existing

buildings exactly.

This very prescriptive level of regulation begins to relate directly, both positively

and negatively, to the creation of new contextual development in historic areas, as is described in

detail in the next chapter.

75For example, a form-based code could provide specific details for how a bay

window is built, or how eaves look in profile as they extend slightly over the edge of a roof.76

Methods of Adoption

Detailing to this level does take some freedom away from architects of new buildings in the

community. When taken to this level of prescription, form-based codes can be just as restrictive

as historic preservation ordinances.

Depending on political realities present in a community during the code development

process, there are three potential methods of adoption:

The scenario in which the code will have the strongest and fastest effect is through

mandatory adoption, in which the new zoning code completely replaces the old zoning code. In

order to implement this, a strong political will is needed. If the code covers large areas of auto-



53

oriented development, perhaps quite recently built, these areas will become nonconforming in

the new code, requiring large investments by the owner to bring them into compliance with the

new code in the event of expansion or major changes to the building. If a code is mandatory,

significant compromises may need to be made in order to make it acceptable for all parties

involved. A significant educational effort would also be necessary when the code is adopted, in

order that all city staff and major developers are familiar with the new code. The new Denver

form-based code is mandatory and completely replaced the city’s 1957 zoning code.

An easier method of adoption is to make the code Optional, as a parallel code that is in

effect alongside the older conventional zoning code. New development does not have to comply

with the new form-based standards, so this code runs the risk of going unused despite the

significant development effort necessary to create it. In this method of adoption, a new form-

based zoning map (Regulating Plan) is created for the city that applies to new development using

the new form-based code only.

A final method of adoption called a “Floating Zone” occurs when the form-based code is

adopted as optional and is integrated into an existing conventional zoning code. In order to do

this, the form-based code is “encapsulated” within one type of zone within the existing code,

called a TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development) Zone or something similar. The zone is

not actually applied to any locations on the map, but whenever a developer proposes to use the

zone type, he or she creates a proposed Regulating Plan to cover the site and then negotiates with

the city in order to find a mutually acceptable version. Upon acceptance, the TND zoning “drops

down” and takes the place of previous zoning at the proposed site on the conventional zoning

map. This adoption method is similar to using Planned Unit Development zoning commonly

used in many cities, and in fact PUD is how many cities have implemented small-scale walkable



54

urban design within the limits of their traditional zoning code, so this is an offshoot of that

practice.77

Where new form-based codes are adopted as optional parallels to an existing code,

incentives can be offered to developers in order to ensure the use of the new code. A set of

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) developed by planner Jason Fondren lists some of the

potential incentives:

78

• Applications are processed administratively rather than through public hearings

• Applications are processed with priority over others with prior filing dates

• Review fees may be waived or reduced

• Density can be increased through transfer of development rights

• Traffic impact reports are waived

• A municipality will construct and maintain internal thoroughfares that through-connect to

adjacent sites

• Payment of property taxes shall be maintained at the level prior to approval, until such a

time as a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for each building

• First-time buyers of newly-created dwellings and businesses within the densest transect

zones receive property tax relief

Truth or Marketing?

Like New Urbanism, form-based codes set a high bar for themselves, claiming to, when

adopted in enough cities, significantly diminish urban sprawl, bring back the stereotypical sense

of community in old-time America, and recreate America’s urban fabric in a way that will make

it more sustainable, more healthful, less dependent on the automobile, and even more fun. And, it

claims to do it in a way that is less bureaucratic and more streamlined, and in the long run both



55

cheaper and easier for both municipalities and developers. It is highly unlikely that form-based

codes will be able to accomplish all of these goals, and there are likely to be unintended side

effects to their implementations. But it is also likely that they will encounter some success in

achieving some of these goals.

So, up to this point, have form-based codes lived up to their hype and delivered on their

marketed advantages? It is really too early to tell, in a general sense, because the urban fabric the

codes are attempting to create or strengthen takes years to develop and solidify, and the majority

of codes in existence have only been adopted in the last five years.

One practitioner has been able to draw conclusions from his experience, though. David

Walters helped design a pioneer form-based code for the small city of Huntersville, North

Carolina, which went into effect in 1996. After ten years of operation, Mr. Walters evaluated its

operation. He concluded that, after ten years, some developers were still resistant to some of the

ideas in the code and lack knowledge about how it works, and so the city planners must be

constantly educating the development community, as well as each needing to develop an intimate

knowledge of the code themselves, which must be passed down to new hires in the planning

department. In order to ensure consistency, the staff has built an interpretation file, in order to

make sure they make the same call on similar issues when they come up in the future. In order to

approve proposals, it has been necessary to assemble an interdisciplinary team that includes an

architect, landscape architect, urban planners, traffic engineers, and others, to discuss the

proposals for hours each week.

Mr. Walters has this generally to say about the city’s experience using its code:

The experience of Huntersville staff, and other planners in the Charlotte area

working with form-based codes, does not bear out the oft-quoted claim that form-based codes expedite permitting and provide incentives for developers with a

quick and less expensive approval process. In theory, because the code establishes



56

a clear physical vision and standards for new development, projects that meet

those standards can be quickly approved. This may happen in some jurisdictions,but in Huntersville, a town well-equipped to deal with these matters with an

expert staff sympathetic to the principles of form-based coding, the design basis

of the regulations injects a greater degree of subjectivity into the approval

process. However carefully worded and illustrated the code might be, thissubjectivity needs careful handling, politically and legally. The approval process

was streamlined and effective, but not necessarily any faster than conventionalzoning practices. However, the town staff was unanimous in stating that the

design content of the code had brought about a big improvement in the quality of

new development in the town during the 10 years of its operation since itsinception in 1996.79

It should be noted that Huntersville was a very early adopter of a form-based code, so it

should be expected that they would have some challenges because their code was unlike all

others at the time. Will the code approval process become more efficient and developers become

more able and willing to provide projects that fall within the codes as they become more

commonplace? It seems likely, but only time will tell.

General Criticisms of Form-Based Coding

While form-based coding has a loyal following, it also has critics. Perhaps the most vocal

are free market advocates that claim that form-based codes represent an even greater level of

government regulation over Americans’ lives, and the solution is to do away with zoning

completely and let the market decide the form new development takes. They cite the “natural

order” that was present in the market before Euclid v. Ambler.80 This is a flawed argument

because, as was noted earlier in this chapter, form-based codes have been a part of the

development landscape in European cities, albeit not with that name, for hundreds of years.

While America did not have such codes, a lack of fast transportation and inspiration from using

European cities as a model, created America’s typical Pre-War urban form. With the advent of

faster transportation in the form of automobiles and America’s belief in its own preeminence,



57

that order no longer exists, so government regulation has to step in. But, the anti-sprawl efforts

of form-based codes are actually just a counter-regulation to the federal subsidies (ie. the GI Bill)

and federal regulations (urban renewal and the creation of the Interstate Highway system) that

created sprawl in the first place and then reinforced it. America’s development market has never

really been free and the typical development pattern present in places without zoning, such as

Houston, does not suggest that deregulation would yield high-quality results.

Within the planning community, there are criticisms or perceived problems with some

aspects of form-based coding and its implementation. Some of these are unavoidable, but they

should still be taken into account when considering creating a code:

• Form-based codes have the potential to be very prescriptive and rigid.81 While in most

cases, form-based codes have been widely supported by the development community as a

way to systematize and simplify the approval for new developments, the provisions must

be carefully tested to ensure that they are not unduly limiting. If too prescriptive, they

could dissuade developers from working in a jurisdiction and have the potential to limit

the creativity and problem-solving abilities of architects.82

• Form-based codes tend to cost two to four times as much as a conventional zoning

code.

83

• In many localities, the streets are managed by a different governing body than the

planning and permit review process in the city. This will require coordination within the

city, which could complicate the implementation of a comprehensive form-based code.

This is because the existing urban form of the community must first be

catalogued, and then the development process requires a long public input phase.

84

• Form-based codes have not been proven legally. While Euclid v. Ambler guarantees the

legality of zoning and Penn Central v. New York guarantees the legitimacy of regulating



58

aesthetics as part of the public good, the legality of the level of prescription form-based

codes include has not yet been challenged.

• In order for cities to establish zoning ordinances in the 1920s, each state had to pass an

Enabling Act, most of them based on a template law called the Standard State Zoning

Enabling Act. This old law does actually allow zoning that is based on form rather than

use, so there is nothing illegal about implementing form-based coding85

. However, in

order to clarify the issue legally and in order to encourage their use, a handful of states

have passed new enabling legislation that specifically enables form-based codes. As of

2006, these were California, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

86

Architectural and Aesthetic Pre-Associations

While the New Urbanism movement often states that it is first and foremost concerned

with the development of good urban form and there is no stylistic bias to its developments 87,

almost every New Urbanist development has derived its architecture from Classicism or other

revival styles relevant to the region in which they are built. This has been the case ever since the

development of Seaside, for which the development team researched the vernacular styles of the

southeast as inspiration and as direct models for the development’s buildings. Andres Duany

justifies this by saying that “the vast majority of homeowners are only interested in traditional

architecture” and that traditional-styled buildings are able to be serviceable background

buildings, though they must be carefully composed and details because any inaccurate use of

traditional architectural detailing results in a parody of the style.

88

Because its heritage derives from New Urbanism and many of its practitioners are also

architects specializing in New Urbanist developments, the form-based coding movement has a

strong tendency to encourage new development to be in historicist styles as well. While this isn’t



59

a problem in and of itself, limiting the expression in new construction has the potential to limit

architectural innovation in a city’s new developments. New Urbanist developments tend to be

neighborhoods in themselves and so don’t influence the architecture that surrounds them. Form-

based codes do influence the architecture of large areas, and so limiting innovation over larger

areas could have more tangible effects on the urban form.

Duany rejects the legitimacy of modernism as a legitimate style for new development, an

attitude that has carried over into the field of form-based coding, because he claims that, in

modernism, each building tries to be individually unique and therefore the sum of them create

visual discord.

89

While this was often true, examples of good and dense urbanism, in which

buildings were contextual to each other, were built during the modern area. Examples of it can be

witnessed by visiting the vast neighborhoods of vernacular modernist houses and apartment

buildings that make up much of the inner ring of Chicago’s western suburbs. 90

New Urbanist architect Dan Solomon states the problem well when he says:

Modernism

cannot be so easily rejected for its bad urbanism, and even if it were, that doesn’t necessarily

give a reason for its rejection as an architectural style.

the attempt to repeal the 20th

century is so fundamentally doomed that itmarginalizes those who subscribe to it. Although the Modern Movement can be

legitimately criticized for its mistakes, its bad urbanism, its granting of autonomy

(a destructive autonomy) to individual buildings and individual architects, thosedefects can be addressed without alienating ourselves from the culture that

produces the new…91

In his quote, Solomon seems to reject modernism but accept contemporary architecture

derived from modernism, but it is important that form-based codes understand the value of both

modernist and contemporary architecture and be willing to code for them as well as revivals of

older styles. As is discussed in the next chapter, this is a very important point for historic



60

preservation as it seeks to preserve the best of the country’s recent past architecture, an initiative

in which form-based coding could significantly help or hinder the efforts of preservationists.



61

Chapter 4.

Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation

What sections and specific regulations in a form-based code affect historic preservation?

Just as preservationists focus more on refining certain elements of proposed new infill

construction in historic neighborhoods than others because those elements are likely to have a

more dramatic effect on the streetscape and context, preservationists should be cognizant of

some elements of form-based codes more than others because they are more likely to have a

more direct effect on the types of buildings that are proposed as infill as a result of the code

and/or the types of buildings that the code implies to be allowed in historic areas.

In terms of specifying the forms of new infill buildings, Building Form Standards have

the most generalized impact on the massing of the structure. In this category, preservationists

should endeavor that codes replicate the existing conditions in each historic area based on the

building placement, height, elements and uses in that location. Specific regulations within

Building Form Standards often include:92

• Specification of a Build-To Line (BTL.) This is a required line that the building is built

up to, not a minimum setback as in traditional zoning. In historic neighborhoods, this

should be consistent with the existing fabric, i.e. in many Pre-War neighborhoods it

should be zero to five feet, as is typically specified by form-based codes, whereas in post-

war neighborhoods, it would typically be farther from the street face.



62

• Specification of a Maximum Lot Width. This disallows the combining of many lots into

one in order to build a very large building in a context where this would not be consistent

with the existing conditions. This regulation generally is consistent with the goals of

preservation because it would tend to keep smaller buildings from being torn down to

combine their lots to build a larger building.

• Specification of Minimum Building Height. While traditional zoning codes typically did

specify a maximum building height, and form-based codes generally do as well, they

rarely specified a minimum height. This regulation has the intent of requiring new infill

buildings to enclose the streetscape consistently. This is generally in line with

preservation goals, but if executed on a large scale, could create a uniform height for all

buildings and thus limit randomness in the streetscape, a feature even of pre-War

communities that can add interest.

• Specification of Maximum Building Height in Stories. By specifying maximum building

height in number of feet, traditional zoning tended to encourage new buildings to fill their

zoning envelope completely. The resultant new construction was uniformly at the

maximum height and had a flat roof in order to make full use of the allowed height. The

buildings also tended to have low ceiling heights in order to get the maximum number of

possible stories, and therefore units, built within the zoning envelope. If the maximum

building height is specified in stories, a more specific measure is given by code of what

the streetscape is supposed to consist of. Generally, the number of stories is set as less

than would typically fit within that height, essentially creating a “soft” height limit of less

than the allowed total height. In order to use the full zoning envelope, the developer can

either provide higher ceiling heights, a rare but oft-sought amenity by buyers, and/or



63

experiment with varied roof forms. The result is intended to be a more interesting and

varied parapet line. This is generally consistent with the goals of historic preservation.

• Specification of Ground-Floor Finished-Level Height. Used for rowhouses and the like,

this height is generally set at about a half-story above grade, consistent with older urban

fabric. This is generally consistent with the goals of historic preservation.

• Specification of minimum ceiling heights for ground floor and upper floors. This is to

ensure that floor-to-floor heights are consistent in newer buildings with the older urban

fabric surrounding them. These are less-used in form-based codes and preservation

review boards usually do not regulate new construction this strictly either. However, in

very sensitive areas with ground-floor storefronts and upper-floor residential or offices,

this regulation could potentially be used to ensure a very certain result. In this case, use of

this form-based code provision would be to the betterment of preservation.

• Specification of maximum building length and width. These regulations specifically limit

the massing of a building on its lot. One application for their use would be in older

residential areas where the tri-part composition of house-rear yard-detached garage is an

important aspect of the landscape and therefore should be maintained. These regulations

are generally consistent with historic preservation objectives.

Architectural Standards, an optional element for a form-based code, can have a strong effect

on historic preservation, with potentially mixed results. Architectural Standards vary in strictness

and depth by typically specifying physical qualities of designs such as symmetry, rhythm of

windows and doors, the locations of doorways, materials, roof types, and even detailing of

specific elements such as eaves, window surrounds, and porches. In historic neighborhoods, such

aspects are typically the domain of design guidelines and architectural review boards, so some



64

conflict is implied between the two types of specified standards unless they were developed in

conjunction with each other. In addition to requiring certain general standards as to massing and

building size, typically historic design review boards, in order to work toward a consistent

application of their power, work from a “kit of parts” of designated significant historic features

in a community. When proposed new infill buildings include some of elements from the “kit,”

the board approves the design, or approves it after specifying small changes to detailing to make

the design more consistent with surrounding fabric. Form-based codes follow a very similar

approach and their “kit of parts” may be more or less specific than those followed by the design

review board, depending on the level of authority the code was given. However, arguments have

been made that this approach to governing review of infill buildings in historic areas is flawed as

it often leads to watered-down historicist knock-offs of buildings already existent in the urban

fabric, and so some design review boards have strived to move past this type of review and

instead ask for buildings to examine the underlying themes of the district, interpret them, and

design infill buildings with contemporary materials and design philosophies, but based upon the

technologies and themes inherent in a historic district’s urban fabric.93 An example would be the

reuse of a widely-spaced metal grid in the façade of an infill building proposed in the Cast Iron

District in the SoHo neighborhood of New York City. This keeps the architecture of a historic

district from being stuck in its historic time period, unable to advance as the city around it

changes. Historic districts were created as a way to recognize and preserve design excellence

from the past, and so it makes sense to encourage it in the future in historic districts, as well. If

preservation philosophy moves more in this direction in the future, a level of conflict is imminent

with the parts-based design philosophy that form-based codes typically imply.



65

Finally, some aspects of form-based codes typically have little relation to historic

preservation. Block Standards only apply to new development and Public Space Standards only

relate to preservation peripherally, for example if a street were to be narrowed to its historic

width or be turned back into a brick street as it was historically. While public spaces, either in the

form of street or park, facing historic buildings contribute greatly to their success, this aspect of

the design is typically not under the purview of historic preservation design review entities.

What dangers does form-based coding pose to the historic preservation movement?

Form-based codes are, in essence, an attempt to use regulation to recreate a type of urban

fabric that organically developed in older communities in the United States without explicit

design codes. The unique appeal of the urban fabric of older, denser cities is the product of a

slow evolution of small changes. Such a diversity of buildings, including their various

idiosyncracies and foibles, is something only time can create. It is impossible to create this by

regulation, but is it possible to approximate that fabric and then let it evolve over time to become

a contributing part of an older historic city center? How does one go about that, and what are

some of the potential pitfalls?

Front-loaded public process.

One marketed advantage of form-based codes is their ability to streamline development

by reaching a consensus of community members during the development of the code, and

therefore not requiring that individual projects undergo a public process but rather be approved

administratively by the planning department, since the code is the product of all stakeholders’

interests.

This may work and makes a lot of sense in cities or areas where the development context

is the same for most proposed projects (i.e. a new Walgreens along a highway) and any



66

criticisms to the development would be about parking availability, signage, materials, etc.

However, in the case of development projects within historic areas of cities (historic districts or

otherwise), form-based codes cannot override the need for the project-by-project public review

process that is typically provided by historic preservation commissions. In historic areas, each

project is different, each site is different, and each historic context is different. Thus, the

appropriate response from the public and from the preservation community will be different for

each potential project and depends on the local preservation ethic at the time as well as the

building’s history. There is no way that a document can foresee and regulate the complex forces

that drive preservation decisions, and so the public process needs to remain open after the code is

adopted.

Creation of a homogeneous environment.

Jill Grant argues, drawing on academic opinions, that New Urbanism has the tendency to

contribute to the homogenization of America. While in theory each New Urbanist community is

to draw from the regional vernacular architecture of the region where it is built, in reality many

New Urbanist communities import vernacular styles that are not native to their regions.94

Form-based coding is directly descended from New Urbanism, and carries with it a

strong imperative to work in a region’s vernacular, as well. And, like some New Urbanist

architects, some form-based coding consultants up to this point have shown less than due respect

It is

true that conventional subdivisions have long done this and that importing a style was a common

practice even in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but New Urbanism is coming of age

in an era where the homogenization of America has reached dizzying proportions, and when the

styles it uses not carefully chosen and applied, it has the potential to continue a trend that it

claims to be working against.



67

to making sure that housing types they specify are native to the locale where they are specified to

be built.95

Freezing a place in time.

While New Urbanist communities have limited influence because they are self-

contained and don’t influence their surrounding urban fabric much, a homogenizing tendency in

form-based coding could have a much wider effect on the urban fabric of America, and so this

potential tendency has to be watched carefully.

If a form-based code includes a very strict level of prescription which includes

architectural standards, the potential exists for it to limit all new development in the community

to the singular approved architectural vocabulary or style. To be sure, this problem already

occurs in some suburban areas that have strict architectural standards administered by an

architectural review board, and the threat is the same. While some level of uniformity even in

architectural styles can add to a city’s cohesiveness, too much control threatens to keep any new

buildings in the community from expressing the architectural innovations of the era in which

they are built. The last unique buildings in the community will have been built soon before the

architectural standards were enacted, essentially freezing the architecture of the community in

time at the date of the code’s establishment. While codes can technically change over time, it

should not be taken as a given that they will, as it should be noted that many conventional zoning

ordinances have been in place since the 1950s or 1960s without significantly evolving since they

were created.96

If such a level of stagnant control is applied to a city, very little new unique

architecture will be created in the community, and so there will be little architecture to preserve

from after the code’s date of application. It should be remembered that it is not always possible

to know what constitutes a landmark when it is constructed, but they are often buildings that

stand out from their surroundings in some way. Andres Duany has said “good copies are better



68

than bad originals.”97

Tendency to create inauthenticity.

But, how is it possible to know what constitutes a bad original when it is

built? This is the reason for waiting for fifty years before designating a building to the National

Register of Historic Places. And, if only copies are built, there will be no originals to preserve.

Form-based coding, if not carefully handled, threatens to freeze a city in a time that never

existed. The most extreme examples of this are the New Urbanist communities of Seaside and

Celebration, Florida. Both are designed to be copies of stereotypical Southern communities from

the early twentieth century. In reality, though, they are resort towns with little diversity and none

of the messiness of the real urban life a town would have.

98

However, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards bind preservationists to not create a

false sense of history. In the sense of creating false history, these most extreme of New Urbanist

communities are not so different from the “villages” that historic buildings were moved to in

droves in the 1960s when they got in the way of progress. Historic preservation rejected villages

like these as inauthentic decades ago, and in the same vein, fake stereotypical villages like

Celebration have no place in historic preservation. Luckily, Seaside and Celebration are very

extreme examples and form-based codes likely do not have the power to transform a real existing

city to that extent. However, preservationists must be aware of the potential for form-based codes

to create inauthentic places out of authentic ones. The compatibility of infill that a form-based

code helps create as-of-right is only as good as the code itself.

They also represent communities

that never existed. A look at real photos of towns from the early twentieth century shows them to

have been more ragged, less well-kept, and less cohesive than the modern towns built to imitate

them. There is a place for villages of nostalgic fantasy, and in this vein it makes sense that

Celebration was built by the Walt Disney Company (see Figure 11.)



69

Figure 11. Celebration is a New Urbanist community created by the Walt Disney Company as a

rendition of a traditional American town. It is perhaps the most extreme example of using New

Urbanism in an attempt to play into nostalgia.

Source: OrlandoWeekly.com

Can be made too prescriptive for preservation.

Form-based codes claim to allow communities to recreate their older urban fabric, but

often offer only a few building types and a set palette of materials and architectural details by

which to do so. While a set palette like this may work for newly-developed places, it has been

suggested in multiple interviews undertaken during the writing of this thesis that the proposed

palette is too small for use in historic cities.99 If an inadequately small palette is put in place in a

historic city, it has the potential to genericize the urban fabric as new buildings will not include

the high level of finely-grained detail historic buildings have. To be sure, this problem already

exists and there is something to be said for a new building playing a background part to historic



70

buildings and perhaps this means less minute detail, but this should be a choice agreed upon by

the developer, architect, and preservation commission, not an unanticipated result of a restricted

architectural palette offered by the code regulating the development.

Danger in too much contextual development.

There is also such a thing as too much contextual development. While preservationists

have long advocated for more and better contextual development that respects its historic

surroundings, form-based codes are able to do this (at varying levels of quality, depending on the

code) without the intervention of preservationists. As little as preservationists like to admit it, the

occasional corner gas station provides an important counter point that sets historic buildings

apart from their surroundings. Creating a whole neighborhood or city of contextual development

leaves nothing that is out of context, and so gives a viewer no frame of comparison. If too many

surrounding buildings show respect to a historic building in their midst, the historic building will

no longer stand alone and unique among them, as elements of its materials and form will be

copied in each of the surrounding buildings, dumbing down the composition of the whole area. It

is not likely that this problem could become manifest at a large scale, but in some very historic

cities, form-based codes do pose this risk.

Less incentive to keep old buildings because old densities can be built again.

This is not a concern in historic districts, where resources are protected, but has potential

to damage areas of non-protected older urban fabric. In many areas of American cities, especially

places where land value is high, a premium is placed on the ability to have as many

condominium or retail units on a lot as possible. In places where older urban fabric exists and the

city is subject to a mid-century zoning ordinance that imposes high parking requirements, often



71

developers buy older buildings and keep them in use in order to get full value out of their

existing units.

In Chicago, as an example, the urban fabric continues to be made up substantially of

1910s and 1920s apartment buildings that take up their entire lots. If one of these buildings is

torn down to be replaced by a new apartment building, that building cannot have the same

density of units because the city’s current conventional zoning ordinance (adopted in 2004)100

requires each unit to have a least some off-street parking. This is true even if the building is

located directly adjacent to mass transit.101

In addition, conventional zoning ordinances typically

limit density well under what was allowed to be developed in the early twentieth century. As a

result, though this point cannot be absolutely proven, it is likely that a large portion of Chicago’s

pre-World War II urban fabric continues to stand as a result of the parking requirements and

density-reductions of conventional zoning codes being applied to the city.102

Form-based codes, by nature, re-legitimize old urban forms and old urban densities.

While they don’t usually rid cities of off-street parking requirements entirely, they do generally

reduce them just as they increase allowable densities somewhat. The threat is that, if new zoning

ordinances are applied to dense neighborhoods where older fabric has been kept standing

artificially by conventional zoning, could re-legalization of high-density urban forms result in the

destruction of large areas of older fabric now that they can be replaced with the same number of

Ironically, thus,

conventional zoning may have acted as a de-facto preservation ordinance for these old, dense

three-story apartment blocks that fill their zoning envelopes. While they are not generally

protected by preservation ordinance and are usually not architecturally spectacular individually

(some are), in many neighborhoods, the city’s urbanity is tangibly felt by walking through block

after block of these structures.



72

units, with modern kitchens and baths? How can form-based codes be written to ensure that

demolition does not occur for this reason? Jim Lindberg of the National Trust suggested that one

solution would be to require developers to recycle ninety percent of waste from the building they

tear down.103

Inclusion of nonconforming use regulations that have hurt preservation in the past.

This would be an expensive prospect for a developer. There are other potential

solutions as well, but this does need to be considered as a potential side effect of a form-based

code that might catch a city by surprise.

Like conventional zoning ordinances before them, form-based zoning ordinances have

sections regarding nonconforming properties that detail what current buildings have been

grandfathered into the code and how much a change to the property needs to be made for it no

longer to be grandfathered. In the past, nonconforming use regulations have worked against the

historic preservation movement. In some cities, a building would no longer be grandfathered if it

became abandoned. Making a major investment in the building could also remove the building’s

grandfathered status, thus requiring the building to comply with the conventional zoning

ordinance. Since older buildings were often built to their lot lines, the addition of modern

parking requirements, landscape buffers, etc. that a conventional zoning ordinance requires was

literally impossible without severely modifying or demolishing the building. And as a result,

many older buildings were demolished or languished for years or decades without major

reinvestment.104

Interestingly, form-based codes re-legalize many of the buildings that were

considered non-conforming under conventional zoning ordinances. If they have lasted this long

grandfathered into the old zoning code, they are completely legal again in the new code. This is a

windfall for preservationists for efforts to preserve buildings that represent America’s older, pre-



73

War urban fabric. In addition to no longer facing a threat from zoning, confidence in their

continued legality may encourage maintenance and investment in these older buildings.

However, form-based codes do apply the non-conforming label to a whole new class of

buildings: typically any building that is set back on its lot behind a parking lot, the auto-oriented

retail that makes up substantial portions of most post-war suburban communities. Form-based

codes seek to require these auto-oriented uses to slowly reform themselves to become the

pedestrian-oriented streetscapes of older generations. Where this auto-oriented development is

blight, this is a good thing, but form-based codes automatically assume that auto-oriented

development is bad, and therein lies a fallacy that preservationists will have to battle in the future

as they attempt to preserve resources from the Recent Past.

Preservationists will find themselves in the position of trying to preserve unique

resources that were developed in the post-war era, once again against the currents of zoning.

While they will fathomably be able to get one or the other post-war auto-oriented building

granted historic designation, the slow effect of zoning will reform its surroundings and remove

its context, leaving only an island representing America’s history in the post-war decades. It is a

difficult call to make because, on one hand, preservationists are usually adamant urbanists that

support the ideas behind form-based codes that seek to recognize America’s past and make Main

Streets vibrant again using their underlying character as strength. A form-based code could

potentially lay much of the regulatory framework for revitalization of a Main Street while

leaving its history completely intact, if coded carefully and sensitive to the type of resources that

exist there. On the other hand, zoning is a surprisingly powerful tool – code consultant Lee

Einsweiler commented on how easy it is to “accidentally wipe something off the map”105

- and



74

thus form-based codes have the potential to wipe out a whole era in American architectural

history just like conventional zoning had the power to before them.

Belief primarily in use of historicist styles, that can dull interpretation of historic buildings.

While form-based codes do not specifically discourage the use of modernist or

contemporary architecture as new developments implement the provisions of the code,

renderings of the “after” state of the city upon full build-out of the code typically show an urban

landscape that is made up of modern replicas of styles from the early 20 th century and before.

Since historic buildings were typically built of very high-quality materials with high-quality

craftsmanship whereas contemporary buildings typically are not, architects and preservationists

can easily distinguish between a real historic building and a contemporary copy on sight.

However, the general public may not be able to. Preservationists and others have long argued

that a great deal of the value of a historic building is in its uniqueness and if a real historic

building is suddenly surrounded by substandard copycats, then the popular appreciation of the

real historic fabric could be diminished.106

Need for performance requirements for sustainability.

On one hand, preservationists fight for the idea of

compatibility, such that new structures respect and do not unduly stand out from the existing

make-up of a cohesive historic place. There is a very fine line between the creation of compatible

new structures and the creation of new buildings that copy the existing fabric and thus threaten to

diminish its uniqueness. This is a careful balance that preservationists have needed to watch for

some time and it becomes an even larger concern with the spread of form-based codes.

The intent of form-based codes is to regulate urban design in a way that brings back the

feel of an older American city. However, beneath all their trim and stucco, structures that are

built under new form-based codes are in fact modern buildings built of modern materials with



75

modern mechanical systems. For the most part, modern mechanical systems are an improvement

over older systems, as they are more energy-efficient. However, when designing with

sustainability in mind (including in the LEED107

system), one potential way to introduce

adequate ventilation into a building while using less energy is through natural ventilation108

,

essentially the art of opening one’s windows. Natural ventilation is an art that was perfected in

exactly the era of urban design that form-based codes are trying to bring back into vogue, as

almost no buildings were built with air conditioning before 1930. By requiring windows of a

certain size in certain amounts or certain locations on facades, form-based codes codes are

essentially requiring the form of the buildings to match that of older buildings that were designed

to be naturally ventilated, yet the codes do not take the minor extra step of requiring them to use

these fenestrations to breathe in the same way that older buildings did, and thus reducing their

energy consumption in a way that is built into their design. Despite their general lack of

insulation, commercial buildings built before 1920 were on average more energy-efficient than

commercial buildings that were built during the 1990s, and approximately as energy-efficient as

those built between 2000 and 2003.109

Conclusion.

By reusing the cleverness of cross-ventilation that older

building designs perfected and then insulating those designs to modern standards, significant

energy savings could likely be achieved. To some extent, this type of requirement is the purview

of a building code, but building codes generally do not regulate window size and location to the

extent that a form-based zoning code does, so in order to unify these logically-connected

requirements, they could easily be included in a form-based zoning code as well.

Despite any potential pitfalls that a proposed form-based code presents for a local

preservation community, form-based codes are vast improvements over conventional zoning. In



76

many respects, their goals ally with those of historic preservationists. They respect and take

inspiration from America’s past, seek to assist in the revitalization of older city centers, and hope

to re-integrate walkability into American lifestyles. In no way should this thesis be taken as a

condemnation of form-based coding.

What opportunities does form-based coding present for the historic preservation

movement?

On the contrary, form-based codes offer significant potential opportunities for local

preservation communities to grow stronger, be viewed as more legitimate, and become more

visible by placing their interests at a more central position in a system of law that is friendly to

their cause.

A way for preservation communities to make their interests law.

Historic preservation is currently protected and legitimized by a series of laws that

include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its amendments and by thousands of

state and local historic preservation ordinances. However, preservation ordinances only apply

when a historic district has been established or an individual local landmark has been designated.

Form-based codes offer the opportunity for preservationists to make historic preservation

a more central discourse in communities by protecting larger areas by integrating preservation

concerns directly into zoning codes. This is done in two ways.

First, historic preservation or conservation overlay districts can be included in a form-

based code. These are special form standards that must be followed in a certain part of a city. For

example, in Denver, the Curtis Park Conservation Overlay District (CO-2) allows detached

garages to be constructed on any lot in the neighborhood that is residential and occupied by a

historic structure. This allows construction that is consistent with the historic character of the



77

neighborhood, even when in violation of maximum building coverage standards of the

underlying Zone district.110

The influence of preservationists can be exerted on the codes in more subtle ways,

however, in such a way that building owners do not even know that they are complying with

provisions of the code that are sensitive to preservation as they follow the code. The preservation

community can build this influence into the code itself by actively engaging in its development.

By pushing for an adequate number of Building Form types for a historic neighborhood that is

being rezoned, they can help the neighborhood stay contextual. Preservation communities may

even be able to exert influence on neighborhoods that are not designated as historic, but have a

cohesive fabric of existing buildings, by requiring contextual form standards to be adopted in

those neighborhoods, such as a limitations on building height, requirement of rear alley garages,

and other measures.

The result of using this hidden influence is that preservationists may be able to protect

sections of the city that would be hard to officially designate as historic, and they can offer some

protection to larger areas of the city without having to exert the significant manpower that would

be necessary to review plans for issuance of certificates of appropriateness, as would be

necessary if the areas were officially designated. The interests of the preservation community in

these areas could be handled (perhaps unknowingly) by officials as part of standard Plan Review

for any new development in the protected area. This has the advantage of not requiring a separate

historic preservation review process, which requires coordination between city commissions and

agencies, but has the disadvantage of potentially being administered by staff not trained in and

not necessarily specifically concerned with historic preservation.



78

Providing contextual form standards as part of a form-based code has the potential to

offer some protection to areas of the city where many citizens may not even understand that

protection needs to offered. One type of area where this applies is communities that have

substantial, significant, and cohesive concentrations of buildings dating from the mid-twentieth

century (recent past resources), especially small-scale storefront buildings. Many communities

do not understand the value these resources may have, but many preservationists are beginning

to, and creating the code in such a way as to require a maintenance of the general scale of these

buildings in areas where they are prevalent could provide a way to keep them standing until the

community realizes their significance and is willing to officially designate them as historic.

Where mid-century development comes up to the lot line and includes large plate-glass windows

that face onto the sidewalk, the case be easily made that these resources contribute to a walkable

and urban community. Auto-oriented mid-century development, in which buildings are placed

within or at the rear of a parking lot, may be hard to protect within the typical framework of a

form-based code that prioritizes the pedestrian.

Pushes back on “property rights” argument that preservationists so often face.

The level of regulation that form-based codes impose is often as strong or stronger than

that that preservation ordinances impose. In the past, especially in more conservative areas of the

United States, preservation ordinances have come up against a claim by property owners that

they unjustly regulate what the owner can do with their property, the usually uneducated claim

that “those preservationists will tell me what color to paint my house!”

Predictability, form-based codes have come up against some of the same arguments in

some cities. For example, the city of Bloomington, Illinois is in the process of adopting a form-

based code at the time of this writing. Dale Nafziger, owner of a landscaping and gardening store



79

on Main Street in Bloomington has led the opposition to the code. His position after eighteen

months of debate on the code was that, despite many changes he agreed with that would make

the code more like the existing (conventional) zoning code111

, he still did not agree with it in

principle, saying that “the new rules (proposed by the [Main Street Association] group) are much

better, but it’s still the freewill thing. I think form-based code tramples the property rights of the

people who helped build the city.”112

As of early 2011, the code remains on the table, but has

been stripped of many of its most urbanist provisions and stands to be adopted only as an

optional parallel code, and only in one of the two twin cities through which the Main Street

corridor runs.

113

Form-based codes potentially face some hurdles at first because of opposition based on

the property-rights argument. Once the codes become more widespread and common, that

opposition will likely become more subdued. As it does, preservationists will be able to more

easily fight the argument themselves by showing that the level of regulation they propose is no

more extensive than that that form-based codes present.

Can help communities regain unique historic character.

Before the era of interstate highways and chain superstores, every small town and large

city had a reason to exist and a specific economic engine – either a product or an attraction –

which provided a community’s wealth and the city’s architectural form reflected that. The age of

the city and its ethnic background also influenced the form of a town’s public spaces, streets, and

predominant architectural styles. In the age of sprawl, homogenization has taken over, the result

of a corporate belief that the same inexpensive prototypical design will serve the needs of any

populace equally well, not taking into account the varying heritage and character of that



80

populace and of the locale. The result has been a well-documented dumbing down of America’s

retail aesthetic.

Form-based codes create a way to regain a town’s historic character or reinforce what

remnants of it still exist. The Regulating Plan of a form-based code can help enforce that new

commercial development occur in locations where a community has prioritized development per

its Comprehensive Plan. The code’s Building Form Standards and Architectural Standards can

require that that new development be contextual with older sections of the community in design,

and that it use high-quality materials consistent with the old buildings to become contextual,

even specifying detailing if that is deemed necessary. For the construction of small commercial

buildings, the code provides guidance on how to create a structure that is contextual to the

community’s desired character. When regulating new proposed structures by large corporations,

the codes can serve as a way to force the corporation’s hand, in terms of the structure’s

aesthetics. Corporations should respect the communities in which they build their stores and add

to their aesthetic and not take away from it. If they did this as a standard practice, these measures

would not be necessary, but since they don’t, form-based codes are a way to ensure new

structures they build do not detract from a community’s character.

It should be mentioned that any attempt to recreate a location’s historic fabric is just that:

a re-creation. If the historic village square has been torn up, a new development will not be able

to recreate it in kind, only in spirit. Only the patina of age can truly create character, though after

a few decades these new developments have the potential also to gain that patina. This has value,

such as for re-creation of the ‘heart’ of a historic district, but also has limitations.



81

Can help communities regain historic features.

Building on the previous point, communities sometimes developed unique solutions to

problems with their geography, solutions that came to help define their character. Venice, built

on a series of islands, has always used its canals as a primary method of transporting people and

goods. Waterfront cities originally built boardwalks because building a conventional street along

a beach would be more expensive. While these touches are not absolutely necessary in the face

of modern technology, they add to the character of the community. When the feel of a

community cannot be retained or re-created as a whole (or where it is felt that it would be fake to

attempt to), historic elements that made a community unique can be specified for inclusion as

part of new construction or renovation in the code in order to give a community back a part of its

historic identity.

An example of this is in Benicia, California, a community on San Francisco Bay in its

eastern suburbs. The city’s old main street runs directly into the ocean. Along that street,

historically, buildings were fronted by wooden galleries over the sidewalk. Benicia’s new

Downtown Master Plan and Form-Based Code by Opticos Design and Crawford, Multari &

Clark Associates allows the re-creation of the wooden galleries, even though they are within the

public right-of-way, as a way of bringing back this unique aspect of the city’s historic

character.114

Documentation process for FBCs is very similar to process for historic surveys.

The code does not require them, however, so it remains a question whether this

recreated element will be consistently implemented.

A unique element to the development process of a form-based code is a process through

which the existing conditions in the community are documented. When a conventional zoning

code is developed, some very general information about the community may be gathered, but



82

form-based codes take this much farther by doing building-by-building and street-by-street

analyses to determine a community’s character.

In creating an FBC to protect and enhance the unique character of a community,

documenting the micro-elements is critical. These micro-scale details are essentialfor a code to be successful in regulating development in character with a

community. …The primary elements to document at this scale are thoroughfares,buildings (form, placement, frontage, types, and use), lots and blocks, and civic

spaces (parks and plazas). Additional elements that the community is interested in

regulating may also be documented, such as architectural styles or landscaping.These micro-scale details will directly inform and become the content for many of

the regulations within the various components of the code…115

A typical methodology for conducting a micro-scale documentation of a neighborhood

involves filling out a lengthy form for each block that includes columns for information on each

building. Rows of data include information such as lot depth and width, length of building

façade, distance between entries to ground floor, etc. This allows comparison between buildings

and blocks in order to formulate a view of a typical allowable footprint. (Example form included

in Appendix B)

The process is somewhat similar to conducting a historic resources survey. The data

recorded in a historic survey includes information on each building such as style, window type,

and materials, which is information that is also gathered as part of a survey for the development

of a form-based code. Typically, a historic resources survey is somewhat more detailed in terms

of historic research whereas a code designer would be more interested in existing building

footprints, heights, and setbacks.

The process of building-level analysis legitimizes the survey process among the urban

design community, though its importance was already well known within the preservation world.

Further, the point could easily be made in a city where a form-based code is being developed that

the chance exists for a neighborhood analysis that includes both types of data to be done with the



83

same staff at the same time, thereby saving resources and money. It is, of course, imperative that

a historic preservation staff member or preservation consultant be retained as part of the survey

team in that case, in order to get usable results.

While promoters of form-based coding encourage building-level character analysis and it

is an important step to ensure that a code best matches a community that it is being developed

for, it should be noted that thorough analysis takes substantial resources, so the actual level of

analysis can vary. Completing a thorough analysis of the existing fabric is especially important

in a historic context, in order that the urban design consultant developing the code fully

understands the subtleties of the fabric in which they are working.



84

Chapter 5.

Case Studies of Form-Based Codes in Historic Cities

Denver

Community Description.

Denver is often thought of a modern, western, progressive city. However, it does also

carry significant history and thus significant historic fabric in its downtown and its older

residential neighborhoods. As such, the creation of Denver’s new form-based code did need to

address historic preservation concerns during its creation and, as will be seen below, it addressed

them thoughtfully and rigorously.

Denver’s history begins in 1858, when it was the epicenter of the “Pikes Peak or Bust

Gold Rush.” Traces of gold were found in Denver itself but the real finds were in the foothills

west of the city. Soon, finds near the city petered out, but it remained fledgling as a supply center

to the prospecting and mining operations occurring further west. As railroads reached Denver,

the city grew from 4,700 people in 1870 to 106,000 by 1890. By the 1870s, it gained a mansion

district filled with influential citizens who had been made wealthy by the Rushes and then in

1879, the state legislature voted to move the state capitol from Golden to Denver. This signaled

long-term prosperity for the city, though actual construction of a new capital building did not

occur until 1908.



85



86

Figure 12 (previous page). At top, two maps illustrate the area covered by the East Colfax Street

Plan, with legends provided at bottom right, At bottom left is seen a time-lapse series of

computer renderings created by UrbanAdvantage intended to show the evolution of a sample

portion of Colfax Street from an auto-oriented corridor to one that welcomes pedestrians.

Source: East Colfax Street Plan

Denver continued to grow through the twentieth century and its development mirrored

the rest of America. In the early decades of the century, transport was dominated by an extensive

streetcar system. With the rise of the automobile in the 1940s, the streetcars were removed and

replaced by buses. In the 1960s, Interstates 25 and 70 were built through the city and traffic that

had previously flowed through the city’s retail thoroughfares was now funneled onto the

freeways. The city’s older commercial arteries declined and the creation of the city’s new zoning

code in the 1950s allowed them to become more auto-centric almost without restriction. Along

Colfax Avenue, “Denver’s Main Street,” filling stations replaced stately mansions lining the

formerly idyllic, tree-lined boulevard. In recent years, though, Denver has become more aware of

the urban design and environmental consequences of these mid-century choices and the

development of the new form-based code gives it the opportunity to right some of the urban

design mistakes of the last few decades. 116

Impetus for the new code.

Prior to the development of a new code, the city’s planning staff had grappled with

several issues that made the need for enhanced regulation clear. First, around 1994, Denver

began to experience a profusion of “pop-tops,” formerly single story bungalows that had a

second-floor addition added. This created shadows and blocked sunlight from neighbors’ yards.

This was the impetus for a “pop-top ordinance,” that regulated solar orientation of the new

additions to ensure that sunlight could get into neighbors’ yards.



87

In the late 1990s, Denver began to suffer a large problem with teardowns, in which an

older home would be demolished in order to build a much larger one on the same small lot.

Denver was also having a proliferation of “long houses,” in which a formerly modestly-scaled

house would receive an addition that extended its living area all the way to the rear of its lot,

creating a building of unusual bulk in the neighborhood. In order to address both these issues, the

teardown phenomenon being particularly troubling to preservationists, then-Planning Director

Jennifer Moulton developed two ordinances, termed Quick Wins 1 and Quick Wins 2 that would

attempt to regulate some of these problems. Quick Wins 1 dealt with site issues by preserving

mature trees and specifying when the garage could face the alley instead of the street. Quick

Wins 2 dealt with the problems more directly by establishing standards for height, massing, and

bulk of new homes and required a distinct back yard. Nonetheless, by this time it was becoming

clear that these were stopgap measures designed as reactionary measures to unexpected problems

that had cropped up in the city’s urban development. It was clear that Denver needed a zoning

code that specified what it did want, not what it did not.117

In the early 2000s, the mayor of Denver was John Hickenlooper, a strongly pro-business

leader. Seeing the bureaucratic morass that zoning approvals in Denver had become, he also

became a strong advocate for a revamp of the zoning code.

118

Code Development Process.

Denver’s new form-based code completely replaces the city’s old 1957 zoning ordinance.

It was a use-based code typical of its automobile-centric era of development and had been

extended and changed significantly over the decades to accommodate new neighborhoods and

special situations, making it an unwieldy and inconsistent patchwork of amendments.



88

The process for planning for a new zoning for Denver began indirectly in 1998 with the

writing of Blueprint Denver. Closely following Denver’s 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Blueprint

Denver was released in 2002 and sought to create a plan for Denver’s future that identified which

areas of the city should be targeted for growth. Taking both land use and transportation into

account, it broke the city into “areas of stability” and “areas of change.” The majority of city

residential neighborhoods, including most of its pre-World War II historic fabric, were

designated as Areas of Stability. Areas in close proximity to stations on Denver’s new light rail

system and the sites of the former Lowry Air Force Base and Stapleton Airport were among a set

of areas set aside as Areas of Change, where large-scale development was to be promoted. The

overall recommendations for areas across the city were laid down in an extensive report and

attached map.119

Before the city embarked upon a full-scale zoning code rewrite, it created a smaller code

as a test case to gauge the effectiveness of form-based zoning in Denver. Called “Main Street

Zoning” and developed in cooperation with the local business community, it was a complete

rezoning of a three mile length of an aging retail corridor. East Colfax Avenue was a street

whose fabric had slowly decayed to become low-density and significantly auto-oriented, not

unlike many urban streets in America. Designated by Blueprint Denver as an “Area of Change,”

planning staff sought to develop a unified vision for the corridor in order to restore a “main

street” sense of place. Basing their analysis on a recent planning study completed of the

corridor

By identifying the fundamental characteristics of urban and suburban

neighborhoods throughout the Denver city limits, Blueprint Denver set the framework that would

allow for the development of a new zoning code.

120, they determined what was causing the low-slung auto-oriented development patterns

on the street was regulation based on floor-area ratios (FAR) and inappropriately high parking



89

ratios, especially for some very small lots that lined the street. They also investigated what

structures were creating appropriate form to the street edge, and found many were

nonconforming to the existing zoning code. In order to fix the problems found, they determined

that parking standards needed to be modified and design standards needed to be created that

encouraged better use and engagement of the street through streetwalls and contextual design.

Density also needed to be increased, in order to better leverage the high-quality transit

infrastructure that runs along the corridor and to make better use of high-value land near

downtown that was being used for large swaths of parking121

The corridor was broken down into three districts, with different proposed height

requirements – 38, 65, and 100 feet – depending on the intensity of redevelopment envisioned

there. Implementation of the plan involved coordination with public officials and a public input

component, and the “hardest sell” to these groups was the need to reduce parking requirements

along the street. In order to prove their point, planning staff provided supply and physical

analyses of parking along the corridor and developed traffic analysis models. They also

presented research on the physical effect that high parking requirements had had on the corridor

over time. In the new zoning for this area, parking was set to zero for lots under 6250 square feet

and reduced by 20-60% for all other lots. The new off-street requirements were one per 500

square feet for all non-residential uses and one per market-rate housing unit for residential uses.

Landmarked buildings and buildings built prior to 1967 that already complied with the new form

requirements were also exempt from parking requirements. Where parking requirements could

not be met on-site, they were allowed to be met through lease agreements or parking

management districts. As the largest rezoning in Denver since the writing of its 1950s code,

(see Figure 12.)



90

Main Street Zoning applied to 300 parcels, the process took less than six months, and it went into

place in September 2005.

In 2004, Hickenlooper hired Peter Park as the new Manager of Community Planning and

Development, who oversaw the development of the new code. In order to solicit input from

skilled professionals in the development field, a sixteen-person committee called the Zoning

Code Task Force was created. This committee was involved in working out the minutiae of many

of the code’s provisions. This task force included developers, architects, planners, community

advocates, city council members, and one preservationist. Reporting to them was a second

committee, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee, which was made of representatives from the

city’s major neighborhood organizations and other groups whose mission involved a concern

with the city’s built form. Historic Denver, the city’s major preservation advocacy group, was

very actively involved and among the most vocal participants on this committee. Throughout its

development, public input was solicited. Each of four drafts was released online and opened for

public comment.

To start development of the code, the city was divided into six development contexts

derived from the Transect, ranging from fully suburban to several urban types, with downtown

being the densest. Each context was given its own chapter for easy reference, and that chapter

contains most regulations that apply to that context. Following photographic examples of the

type of development the context would include, a list of building types that might be built in that

context is included. The intended urban form for each group of building types is explained and

then each type is described in detail with example axonometric views and site plans, followed by

a table of requirements for height, design, and location on its site.122



91

After laying out general standards for each urban/suburban context for each potential

building type in each context, the code goes on to list several special contexts, such as industrial,

campus, and airport zoning. Then, the code includes a chapter of general design standards. These

include landscaping, lighting, and signage regulations. Next, a chapter is included that lists

limitations on uses in each zoning type. While form-based codes are less focused on use, they

still limit them to an extent. The final two chapters of the code are devoted to procedural

requirements, descriptions of special overlay districts, and definitions.

Inclusion of Historic Preservation Stakeholders.

At first, Denver’s preservation community was interested in the fine-tuning of the city’s

development regulations due to the proliferation of teardowns. However, as the city moved

toward a complete rewrite of its zoning code, preservationists saw an opportunity to be on the

front lines of a new regulatory framework that would allow them the power to address some of

their development concerns and write safeguards for them into law.

While, as expected, the code is the result of many voiced opinions being combined into

one document, the influence of the input of preservationists is apparent in many places

throughout the code. Many of them are subtle and are supported by other interest groups as well,

such as the inclusion of a 2½-story maximum height limit123

The code also includes some aspects that are more obvious influences by preservationists:

along with a numerical height limit

in order to allow for variation in ceiling height and roof form in order for new development to be

more contextual to existing. Preservationists also influenced certain volumetric and massing

requirements.

• The inclusion of a “preservation hardship” provision. The zoning code provides a set of

administrative adjustments in order to allow the zoning staff to make certain exceptions



92

to the code based on the inability of a property to meet the letter of the code without

hardship. Two of them are applicable to preservation. One type is for historic properties,

in which if it is found that conforming to the Code’s regulations “would have an adverse

impact upon the historic character of the individual landmark or the historic district, if a

historic district is involved.” Another is to be used to allow a new structure to have better

compatibility with an existing neighborhood, when “the property could be reasonably

developed in conformity with the provisions of [the Denver Zoning] code, but the

proposed variance will result in a building form that is more compatible, in terms of

building height, siting, and design elements, with the existing neighborhood in which the

property is to be located.”124

• Special uses allowed in Conservation Overlay Districts. The code includes areas

designated specially as Conservation Overlay Districts. These areas cover similar areas to

certain historic districts but are not otherwise related. Two such areas are defined initially

by the code with the provision to ultimately establish others. These areas have special

allowances depending on special needs in the place. For example, in the Curtis Park

Conservation District, detached coachhouses (accessory dwelling units) are allowed to be

constructed on lots where the historic home is still standing. This allowance overrules any

regulations elsewhere in the code that ban them, including maximum lot coverage

requirements.

125

• Historic Structure Use Overlay. A special type of use overlay has been created that

applies to any structure designated as historic in an underlying residential zone. This

allows three uses to be established in the buildings, notwithstanding the use limitations of

the underlying zoning: office (not including medical or dental), art studio, or bed and



93

breakfast lodging.126

For these uses, parking requirements can be adjusted downward

significantly if they present a hardship.127

• Block-sensitive setbacks. These are used when the blockface containing the lot has at

least three structures already built. In this case, the front of the new building must not be

closer to the street than the closest existing home and not farther away from the street

than the farthest home. This keeps the building fronts contextual with each other.

128

Review of code.

The Denver code is bold and wide-ranging. As only the second major American city (the

first was Miami) to implement a form-based code across its entire area and to make it mandatory,

Denver had few precedents to build upon to make the code fully customized to the many

disparate and unique neighborhoods that comprise its urban fabric. Nonetheless, the 1,076-page

document shows itself to be the thoughtful work of a dedicated team and many thoughtful public

contributors, with the intent of enforcing a meaningful and major transition in the type of

development constructed in the city.

The code has only been in active effect since July 2010, and only required of all new

projects since January 1, 2011. Thus, the full impact of the code is yet to be known. However,

since it has been enacted, some impacts have already been seen. Retail convenience store chain

7-Eleven has been building many stores recently in Denver. It has been resistant to changing its

standard prototype as necessary for construction under the new code, so the resultant building

has essentially been the prototype building inelegantly turned away from the street but built up to

it, with an entrance along the sidewalk. A McDonald’s restaurant has also recently been

constructed under the new code on the site of an accidental demolition of an older restaurant that

had been constructed to the prototypical auto-oriented design of decades past. The new design,



94

despite resistance from the franchisee’s architect, is turned sideways and built up to the sidewalk

with parking and drive-through at its rear.129

These examples suggest that it will take some time for architects and corporations to get

used to the new code, but enforcement is possible. As form-based codes proliferate across the

country, corporations will likely create prototypes that are able to meet the new zoning standards

in more elegant ways. Nonetheless, even these small design changes to long-held prototypes

suggest the kind of major change the code has the potential to create citywide.

Charleston


Charleston, South Carolina is widely considered to be one of America’s most historic

cities, and it is home to a large preservation community that actively stewards and protects the

city’s large cache of historic buildings, which range in age from the early eighteenth century to

the mid-twentieth. Its preservation community is also one of the oldest in the United States.

Leading that preservation community are two advocacy organizations, the Preservation Society

of Charleston and the Historic Charleston Foundation.


Since before the widespread national popularization of the historic preservation

movement, Charleston has been actively planning for the preservation of its past. The Old and

Historic District in the Lower Peninsula of downtown Charleston, encompassing the original

walled city, was the first historic district to be established in the United States, having been

created in 1931.130

From the 1970s to the present, Charleston has completed historic surveys of

most parts of the city. In 1974, Charleston developed its first comprehensive Preservation Plan,



95

which was updated in 2008 by architecture firm Page & Turnbull based on review of changes

over that thirty-year period and extensive public input. A central diagram to the report is a

Character Map, which is the result of a windshield survey done of the city and identifies portions

of Charleston that have a cohesive neighborhood character defined by dense groupings of

historic resources, and therefore should be preserved. The remaining sections are judged to lack

in cohesiveness and therefore are able to benefit from future development, and thus are

designated “transitional zones.”131

In order to ensure that new development in transitional zones is contextual with the

historic city that surrounds it and with the scattered historic buildings that exist within the zones,

the Preservation Plan makes several recommendations. The first is to establish citywide urban

design principles which would also include these areas. Development of mixed-use structures is

promoted where ground floor retail would be viable. An adjustment of parking requirements is

recommended, in order to encourage appropriate scale in development. Finally, the adoption of a

form-based approach to zoning is recommended.

132Form-based zoning is marketed as a way to

better articulate preferences for form and uses and also as a way to invite public input through

the incorporation of public workshops in the development process that allows them to express

preferences and concerns about density and design. Since Charleston still operates on a

conventional zoning code, as-of-right regulations on some large lots allow for out-of-scale

buildings or densities.133

One of the sections of the city that was judged to be ripe for new development is a section

of the peninsula stretching along Calhoun Street from the Cooper River waterfront west to

Marion Square, and extending two to three blocks north and south from Calhoun along the

waterfront, east of Alexander Street. Previously, the city’s 2000 Downtown Plan “identified the



96

collection of under-utilized sites in this area and determined that new planning goals were

needed to guide future investments there.” As a result, Charleston’s city Department of Planning

& Neighborhoods chose this area to engage in a further study of development options.

The resultant study was developed throughout 2009 by a team led by architecture and

planning firm Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, and was adopted by the Charleston City Council on

February 9, 2010. This plan looks at the study area in much more depth than the general

preservation plan, and incorporates traffic, economic, and marketing analyses into the scope, as

well as an analysis of the urban and pedestrian character of the streetscape and built environment

(See Figure 13.)

Since Calhoun Street is one of the only streets that runs east-west across the entire

peninsula, it tends to attract high-speed traffic and the lack of street parking only encourages

that. The existing streetscape shows a wide variance in sidewalk widths and large gaps between

clusters of street trees. Several pedestrian-unfriendly intersections also line its length. Most of

the study area falls within Charleston’s Flood Zone, which requires no occupiable space to be

built below a flood line that varies by location to as much as seventeen feet above street level.

This regulation tends to encourage first floor space to be used for parking, further deadening the

streetscape. On the west end of the study area, near Marion Square, surface parking and single-

story retail uses are present in places, out of context with their surroundings. Along the

waterfront, several parcels remain undeveloped and are owned by the City.134



97



98

Building on conclusions made from its existing conditions analysis, the report lays down

the framework and the recommended setbacks and other numerical regulations for a new set of

“development guidelines” that would cover this area that have many of the characteristics of a

form-based code. These guidelines were developed by form-based codes consultant Code Studio,

based in Austin, Texas. The proposed guidelines would be an overlay to the existing zoning and

thus likely be legally binding. However, the report does not actually formulate the form-based

guidelines as an ordinance to be enacted and so no binding and enforceable changes have yet

been made to the area’s zoning; that step lies in the future. Nonetheless, at this time this is the

first form-based code nationally to be proposed in such a historic place and so the reaction to its

proposed creation by the stewards of the city’s historic resources warrants examination.

Unlike most form-based codes, these proposed guidelines would not seek to simplify or

streamline the approval process for new buildings, only to lay down the city’s preferences for

contextual urban forms in a more specific way than conventional zoning and height limits were

capable of. Indeed, even if new form-based guidelines are adopted, Charleston’s powerful Board

of Architectural Review will retain its full powers to override the guidelines and enforce its

recommendations on massing, scale, materials, and details that are appropriate for the new

building to fit into its historic setting.135

Figure 13 (previous page). At top, the map illustrates the area on the east side of the peninsula on

which Charleston is located that the Calhoun Street Special Area Plan covers. At center left is

shown the existing conditions on the corridor, relatively desolate and pedestrian-unfriendly for as

historic a city as Charleston. At center right, a rendering of the proposed redevelopment along the

corridor is shown, for a sample site. And at bottom, a sample of the form-based guidelines

developed as part of the plan are shown.

Source: Special Area Plan: Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront



99


The proposed code was developed by Code Studio, an experienced firm that has

developed tens of codes throughout the country. In the particular case of Charleston, it was clear

to the coding team that they were dealing with historic fabric and so they chose to code to it as

much as possible. The first step in doing this was understanding the historic environment they

were attempting to emulate. This involved a study of street and aerial maps, the development of

figure-ground diagrams, and selective on-the-ground observation and field measurements. Since

a form-based code is not necessarily intended to recreate exactly what is already there, but only

to emulate it to the extent desired, the buildings forms that are developed based on what exists

are then tweaked slightly to provide new development at a density or of a massing that the

municipality prefers.

In Charleston, Code Studio was commissioned to help the city develop an urban fabric in

the Calhoun Street corridor that is based on what exists there but is modified somewhat.

Specifically, while Charleston is an extremely historic city, it is also a southern city, part of the

Sun Belt, and thus growing quickly due to the migration of the American population to the

southern states. As such, plans need to be made for its future growth, in the historic city center as

well as in the more modern and less historic surrounding suburbs. Since the historic peninsula of

Charleston is almost completely built-up, plans for its continued growth need to be focused on

the careful further densification of this historic core. The primary way this is proposed to be done

is through the densification of under-utilized areas with a less cohesive urban fabric, such as the

Calhoun Street area. The proposed form-based code is intended to selectively densify portions of

this core, and so its provisions bear this out while keeping specific control of the detailing of new



100

developments under the control of the city’s Board of Architectural Review, to ensure

consistency with the surrounding historic structures.


Since it is not yet an operational form-based code that has been passed into law, the final

form that a form-based code for Calhoun Street would take is not known, as its actual

implementation would involve a lengthy public process (a public process did take place for the

Calhoun Street Plan, but it did not focus on the form-based code features, specifically) and

thereby modifications as desired by the community and various organizations with a stake would

be made as part of the result. However, the development of this set of form-based standards

raised concerns within the Charleston preservation community that are precedents for the type of

concerns preservationists in Charleston and elsewhere may have with codes like this in the

future, and thus are useful and important to study.

The Preservation Society of Charleston specifically posted its concerns with the form-

based aspect of the Calhoun Street Plan on November 9, 2009 as a Current Preservation

Issue/Concern on its website with the heading “The Society expresses serious concerns about the

Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront Special Area Plan.”136

• The Form Based Code building forms as proposed are not compatible withhistoric building forms and they are too restrictive in terms of basic design

elements such as window sizes and distance between doors and windows. The

design elements of existing historic buildings must be taken into consideration

when designing new buildings adjacent to historic districts.

Excerpting the sections

specifically critical to the form-based elements of the plan, the concerns read:

• The recommended change to regulate maximum height of buildings by numberof stories rather than height needs clarification. Regulating the height of newbuildings is critical in historic districts and the current recommendations are not

consistent and need further study. (As approved, there is conflicting language

referring to stories and height limitation of 55’.)



101

Concurrently, Charleston’s other preservation organization, the Historic Charleston Foundation,

posted a statement in support of the plan on its website.

The second of the Preservation Society’s points refers to a regulation that limits most new

construction in Charleston to fifty-five feet tall, fifty in residential areas. Within fifty feet of a

historic building rated 1 or 2, the highest ratings in the city’s historic resources survey, the height

of a new building cannot be taller than the height of the historic structure.137

A third concern that Robert Gurley, Vice President of the Preservation Society of

Charleston, raised with the code is that it includes a building type, the rowhouse, that specifically

does not exist in Charleston. In fact, Charleston has only three rowhouses and they are a unique

historic conglomeration because of their rarity. Gurley argued that allowing the inclusion of the

rowhouse as a common building type would infringe upon the rarity of the type and by extension

upset the delicate and established mix of building types that are used for housing in

Charleston.

138

Neither of these questions were posed directly to the form-based code development team

during the code development process because that aspect of public meetings has not yet

occurred. However, I posed these questions to Lee Einsweiler, one of the proposed code’s

designers and principal at Code Studio.

139

In terms of the first point, in which it is feared that the form-based code will not promote

development that is compatible with historic buildings in basic design elements such as windows

and doors, Mr. Einsweiler notes that this is a concern because many of the historic first-floor

retail spaces in Charleston have very low transparency in their facades because they are

essentially house forms with retail uses, as was typical in the 18th

and early 19th

centuries,

whereas modern retailers have much higher expectations for façade transparency. The specific



102

guidelines on this point have not been developed, nor have guidelines for façade composition, so

it should only be noted that the form-based code team acknowledges this aspect of the historic

fabric and the guidelines will have to be developed in conjunction with the concerns of both

retailers and preservation organizations.

The second point regarding measurement of building height may be an example of lack

of communication in this case, but its mention is useful to demonstrate a point often raised

during the development of form-based codes. In order to ensure relatively consistent floor-to-

floor heights and heights of windows, to allow for variation in roof shape, and to discourage

developers from cramming units into every last foot of allowable height, heights are often

specified in maximum floors as well as maximum number of feet. In this way, the developer

either provides high ceilings in the units or a different type of roof such as a gable, both of which

promote more variety in buildings than a code that allows for the maximum amount of units

physically possible within a volume. The same measurement philosophy is applied in the Denver

code.

Finally, in terms of the addition of rowhouse building type in the proposed code, Mr.

Einsweiler admitted its incongruity compared to the historic fabric, which is dominated by

sideyard houses. However, the addition of rowhouses was chosen because it would allow for

higher-intensity development than current models provide. It could potentially be looked at with

a more purist perspective and/or there potentially could be a way to modify or reinvent the

sideyard house form to allow for higher-intensity development. However, this seemed like a

good compromise because of its relative compatibility with the historic scale, if not specific

building type.



103

Review of Code.

This code cannot be reviewed as a complete air-tight piece, as it has not yet been

developed to that extent. However, it can be reviewed in terms of its intent as a solution to a

problem confronting the city of Charleston. Charleston comes up against the unenviable

challenge of curating growth within a historic context. By focusing on only these transition areas

specifically for growth, the municipality is limiting the potential negative aesthetic impact of

new development and focusing that development in areas that concurrently have the most open

sites for development, thus the most potential for density, thereby limiting the development

pressure on the more cohesive historic areas. This seems like a potentially very effective

strategy.

The form-based code is intended to be a guide to developers as to what the city is expects

and is most likely to approve in the development areas, thereby limiting some trial-and-error on

the part of the developer. Nonetheless, under the proposed code, new developments (at least in

the Calhoun Street corridor) will remain under the jurisdiction of the city’s Board of

Architectural Review, thus providing an aesthetic safeguard to ensure that massing and detailing

are in line with the surrounding historic fabric. While potentially unnecessary and overly

bureaucratic in the case of a well-intentioned developer and a historic-minded architect, this

proposed situations allows for as complete predictability as is possible in future development

within the older historic areas of the city of Charleston, while being as friendly to new

development as possible under the circumstances. While limiting, this system seeks to improve

the existing regulatory framework in Charleston and thus make use of modern planning methods

to allow Charleston to continue to retain the historic building stock that gives it a sense of place

unlike any other American city.



104

Riverside


Riverside, Illinois is one of America’s first planned suburbs and is deeply historic, having

been named a National Historic Landmark in 1970. Laid out in 1869 by noted landscape

architect Frederick Law Olmsted, it is defined by curving streets that are sunk slightly below the

level of abutting lawns and a pair of common lawns with grassy knolls for passive recreation.140

The house styles in the city are eclectic, varying from Victorian and Shingle-style homes from

the late nineteenth century to Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie-style Coonley House complex to

high-style modernist houses to a few neo-historicist mansions of stereotypical suburban ilk built

over the last few years. Lot shapes are irregular along the winding roads, providing uniquely

different site conditions and views for each house.141

The town is based around its train station that always has, and continues to, connect it

with daily hourly passenger train service to downtown Chicago, ten miles away. The town has a

small commercial district along both sides of the railroad tracks as they run through the center of

the village. While the village also has a modern auto-oriented retail on two of the bordering

arterial streets, the central historic shopping district has always been the town’s commercial core

and has provided space for small, local businesses.


During the 1920s, the Village adopted the new idea of zoning. However, the ordinance

that it adopted at the time was quite generic and could have been used for any suburban town,

including the setbacks and parking requirements that it mandated. In addition, it did not include a

slew of subcodes that are considered standard in a modern ordinance, including signage or even a

landscape ordinance, which was an issue given the historic importance of the community’s



105

landscape design. As of the early 2000s, the original 1920s zoning ordinance was still officially

in use, but had become quite unwieldy due to various amendments over time. Even at that time,

it still did not include landscaping or signage requirements. Rather than use the zoning code to

discourage developers from building structures of incompatible design in the Village, the Village

had essentially given up on the code and resorted to making the bureaucratic project approval

process more difficult for these developers. Ultimately, the process got to the point where it

hindered any new development from occurring in the Village. In the early 2000s, the decision

was finally made by the Plan Review Committee and the Village Board to revisit the zoning

ordinance and fix its many faults in order to make it functional again.

142

In order to work out the actual mechanics of the new zoning code, the Village of

Riverside hired Camiros, Ltd. of Chicago as consultant. Unlike the codes in Denver and

Charleston, there was never a stated intent to make the new Riverside code “form-based,” though

ultimately the code did end up including several form-based elements. Elements that are now

considered “form-based” that were included in the code were a three-dimensional envelope in

which massing of new homes are required to fit within, the institution of maximum setbacks in

the central commercial district, inclusion of architectural standards within the code, and

specification of adherence to historic building patterns.

143

These elements were added to the code not as part of a pre-determined coding doctrine

but because of a wish for the code to recognize the physical needs of the community itself. Arista

Strungys of Camiros notes that creating a code for a historic community is, in some ways, easier

than creating one for a more modern location because the physical place is already there on

which to base the requirements of the new code.

144



106



107

Figure 14 (previous page.) Image at top left shows a portion of the street plan of the Village of

Riverside, designed by preeminent landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. At top right is

seen a portion of the 1936 Works Progress Administration map of the Village from which

modern siting requirements for new houses are taken. Shown at center left is a diagram of the

setback requirements for each lot in the historic Central Business District of Riverside, based on

historic building setbacks on each lot. At center right is a set of form-based building envelopescreated as part of the zoning code rewrite, intended to make new homes in the Village more

contextual with older ones. At bottom is the village’s water tower at left, designed by William

LeBaron Jenney and a typical home in the community, seen at right.

Source: Strungys, “Riverside: A Master Planning Community”


In the mid-2000s, the residential and commercial sections of the zoning ordinance were

rewritten separately. The commercial code was tackled first because the business community

wanted to reform the development process.145

In each case, the code was modified to align the

document more closely with the historic formal intent of the city’s development patterns, and to

encourage new development as long as it replicated the massing and street orientation of the

buildings already present in the Village. There was a strong sense by residents of the Village that

the historic design of the Village, both in terms of landscape of building design and orientation,

is its preferred state (and, in fact, the reason why many of the residents choose to live in the

Village) and so new development should be consistent with that form.146

In addition to a full rewrite, the Village added new landscape and signage ordinances

intended to require these elements to be replicated according to their historic forms and intents.

The consultant began the process by first carefully studying that historic character. In

Riverside, a photographic study of the community was done and a series of maps was created on

which the building orientations and relationships to the street were studied (see Figure 14.)


As a National Historic Landmark, and because many of its residents are history-minded

designers themselves, historic preservation is a very important issue in Riverside, one that tends



108

to dominate any discussions of physical change. This was the case during the zoning code

rewrites as well. The question was not so much whether to recognize the Village’s historic form

and stay consistent with it, but how to do that in the most effective way while adhering to the

realities of a modern bureaucratic permit review process and modern materials and architectural

forms.

During the residential zoning rewrite, the decision was made to require all new homes to

be set back from the lot line the same distance that homes were recorded to be in a 1936 map of

Riverside that was created by the Works Progress Administration. An original intent by

Frederick Law Olmsted was to require that the viewer could see through the lots so that the

entire landscape would look somewhat transparent, so this requirement maintains that idea. 147

The residential code also lays down material standards that ban the use of a list of materials

including “jumbo brick,” concrete masonry units, mirrored glass, metal wall panels, and several

others on the exterior for use as a surface finish material.148

While reformulating the commercial code, the hope was to reinforce the streetwall in the

central commercial district along the railroad tracks, in order to maintain and enhance the

existing character there. Therefore, based on the historic location of buildings on each lot in the

downtown district, maximum setbacks were individually specified for each lot and codified in a

map. On the other hand, less strict requirements were created for the auto-oriented retail district

along the community’s eastern edge. While the code does require a streetwall in these locations,

signage, parking, and landscape requirements are less strict.

149

Review of Code.

It is interesting to note that the form-based zoning ordinance in Riverside was developed

before form-based codes have enjoyed widespread publicity over the last five years and was a



109

direct response to a historic community’s individual needs rather than the result of a community

jumping upon the most recent trend in the hope that it will solve its problems with placelessness.

In an ideal world, this is how every form-based code should come to be and it is important

especially in the case of historic communities that they understand their inherent character and

their wishes for its future evolution before turning to a consultant to make that reality. Because

Riverside understood what makes it special, its Village Board and citizen-run committees were

able to work with the consultant in order that a code could be delivered that specifies an

appropriate direction for the community’s future over the next couple of decades. While the code

specifies far more than it did previously, it leaves the community’s historic preservation plan

review apparatus in place, realizing that this is necessary in order to ensure the highest quality

and most thoughtful construction in the community.

By developing a code from scratch, Riverside and its consultant Camiros unintentionally

avoided some of the baggage that comes with the form-based coding movement. It is not form-

based in every aspect and so is more what the form-based coding community would consider a

“hybrid” code. Thus, it follows the structure of a standard zoning code and does not intentionally

include graphical elements except where necessary to explain ideas. In staying consistent with

traditional zoning terminology and formatting, it lowers the learning curve for developers and

architects in working with the new code, an issue cited in adoption of the new Denver code. 150

In

the case of Riverside, despite its faults, the existing traditional zoning ordinance had been able to

retain the community’s sense of place relative well, so a complete replacement of its underlying

principles was not seen as necessary, only an extensive fine-tuning that included the addition of

several form-based elements to make it prescriptive rather than proscriptive.



110

Chapter 6.

Conclusion:

A Guide for Preservationists in Cities

Developing Form-Based Codes

Building on the points developed in the first four chapters and lessons learned from the

case studies presented above, this final chapter presents this thesis’s conclusions in the form of a

guide that preservationists might use to be best informed during the development of a new form-

based code in their historic city.

• The form-based codes movement markets itself to have huge advantages, some of which

are definitely true (better potential urban design) and some that are likely not (faster

turnaround times for developers). Preservationists should be cautious of some of the

movement’s claims because they are not yet substantiated by the passage of time.

• Before a municipality commissions a form-based code, the community and

preservationists within that community must embark on a period of self-study and fact-

finding in order to understand what problems they are attempting to address or solve by

way of a new or revitalized zoning code. A code is only as good as the vision behind it,

and the strongest beneficiary and the biggest proponent of that new vision should be the

citizens and leadership of the municipality itself. Without strong and determined

cheerleaders, a new code is unlikely to be passed with development policies and the

“teeth” necessary to be able to achieve dramatic change. And without strong and



111

determined cheerleaders in the preservation community, a new code is unlikely to

adequately address preservation issues.

• At this point in time, the quality of consultants that develop form-based codes varies

widely. Some consultants do a full-scale analysis of the city and base the new code on the

results, whereas others are less thorough in their analysis of existing context. Some firms

develop a code from scratch whereas some calibrate the SmartCode to the conditions in

each city in which they work. Because many larger code consultants do not yet fully

understand form-based coding, some have been developing “hybrid codes,” which have

the layout of a conventional zoning with the addition of design standards that specify

bulk, materials, parking, and architectural features, and laid out in a more user-friendly

graphics-intensive manner than that of a typical conventional zoning code. Nonetheless,

these codes tend to be based around the idea of uses rather than physical form, which is

the principal way in which the two classes of zoning codes fundamentally differ. The

City of Phoenix was duped by this approach, having spent one million dollars to receive a

use-based code similar to what it already had. 151 While it should be noted that the code

examined in the Case Study for Riverside, Illinois earlier in this thesis is in fact, a hybrid

code, that was exactly what the community was looking for and is a valid approach in

some cases where the community knows what it is getting into. However, in some cases,

communities have received hybrid codes because they were not well-educated about the

intended result of their zoning reform. Since each code is different and specifically

tailored to the intents and desires of a community, proper care and vetting should be used

when picking a form-based coding consultant in order to ensure that the consultant

understands the coding process well enough to be able to provide the community with



112

what it is asking for. In response to this need, the Form-Based Codes Institute publishes

an RFQ template available on their website that is usable by any municipality and is

intended to help better weed out the qualifications of prospective code development

teams with the result of the municipality hiring a consultant with the knowledge and

capabilities to develop a true form-based code.152

• Historic districts and city centers that are full of historic buildings, even when they are

not officially designated as such, are delicate places. Additional effort and thought must

be put into tailoring the proposed code to a historic context. Whereas in a stereotypically

suburban area, a cursory survey of the city’s urban form and the application of several

existing pre-designed building types may be passable, in a historic area, a thorough

survey of existing conditions must be performed and custom building types must be

created in the code to match types and sub-types present in the historic place. It is

possible that a recent historic resources survey can serve as the basis for the examination

of existing conditions in the district, but further examination of urban design features

present should be done. This extra research and tailoring will add more cost, but

substantially more quality, to the code.

• Building on the previous point, preservationists must insist that character surveys be done

by the code consultant of all historic or potentially historic areas. This will allow the

consultant to truly understand the historic areas and propose more appropriate infill

development for them. If there are no funds available for this work, it may be in the best

interest of preservationists to complete the character surveys themselves or with

volunteers and then work to ensure that their results are used by the consultant.



113

• The building types that make sense for the city as a whole may not necessarily make

sense in historic areas. For the sake of simplicity, a city-wide form-based code may only

propose a set number of building types. Preservationists must ensure that the building

types proposed are consistent with the neighborhoods they are intended to be constructed

in.

• A troubling part of the premise of form-based codes is that their public process is entirely

front-loaded. For efficiency, they propose to gain a community consensus at the time of

the code’s development and then allow most or all reviews to be done internally as part of

the standard administrative process. As the plan review process is intended to be very

systematic, it is important that a mechanism be created to test the code at regular intervals

to ensure that it is creating the type of development that is intended and providing the

type of guidance that is needed, especially near or within historic areas. While

developments under conventional zoning technically underwent a similar systematic

process for approval, in many cities many recent zoning reviews have been done as one-

on-one reviews with city zoning staff because the existing zoning was perceived as not

able to create desired results153

. The idea of form-based zoning brings with it the

potential to better regulate the results of administrative systematic plan reviews than was

possible under conventional zoning, an ability that should be taken advantage of, but this

only works if the demands of the code and thereby the results of plan review are kept

consistent with the evolution of desired forms of new development in the city. Thus,

preservationists (and other community groups) must push for a schedule or process for

continued public process after the code’s adoption. This will allow for preservationists to

have at least indirect influence on proposed projects throughout the city and will allow



114

them to weigh on the code’s continuing effectiveness, specifically the code’s applicability

to historic districts and their surrounding areas. Catching problems with the code in a

continued public process will allow tweaks to be made to the code’s standards where it is

not working up to the level expected before large numbers of non-contextual or

inappropriate structures are constructed.

• Specifically, form-based codes cannot serve as a substitute for historic commission plan

review. Whether or not projects are approved administratively by the planning

department, projects in historic districts must still undergo historic preservation review

because even if the code seeks to be supportive of preservation, the staff that is approving

projects in the planning department still may not have the background to be sympathetic

to preservation concerns.

• Preservationists’ input in the development of form-based codes must think in terms of the

future. While developing urban design standards that reinforce or re-create early

twentieth century walkable urban fabric is in vogue now, it threatens to promote the

widespread demolition of areas of recent past resources. While these are not widely

regarded as historic by the general public yet, more progressive preservationists have

begun to understand their historic value, and it is important that they not be left out of

code development efforts, lest there be nothing left to preserve as a result.

• And, finally, the most important point to be made, one that the rest of these points imply

but should be stated plainly, is that the preservation community must be involved in

the code’s development process. Up to this point, preservationists have not been widely

represented in the development of new form-based codes, and many seem to show little

interest in them. As a result, many new form-based codes do not represent the best



115

interests of preservation. Form-based codes present the single best opportunity at the

current time to guide a community’s general urban form for decades to come, and they

are equally applicable to historic, semi-historic, and non-historic neighborhoods. A

preservation community that does not participate in development of their city’s new

form-based code cedes control of the city’s urban form completely to groups with other

interests that may or not be sensitive to historic preservation. Preservationists are used to

being reactionary and they are used to being the underdogs, but in this case, the correct

approach is to be up front and a part of the public process.



116

Endnotes

1Jason T. Burdette, “Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?” M.S. Thesis, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004. 3.2

Chad Emerson. The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2007. 22.

3 Burdette 44

Carol Willis, Form Follows Function: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago , New York: Princeton

Architectural Press, 1995. 23.5

Burdette 56

Burdette 77

Emerson 238

Burdette 8-99

Burdette 910

Emerson 31-3211

Emerson 3712

Emerson 24. Excerpted from Standard Zoning Enabling Act, Section 3.13

Emerson 2814

Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life and Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. 237-238.15Burdette 11-12

16Jill Grant, Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2006. 197. A

report was presented on form-based zoning at the 2004 Conference of the American Planning Association by

Megan Lewis, AICP. Panels on the subject were included in the 2005 and 2006 conferences, as well. However, it is

noted that beyond these discussions, the APA’s support for form-based coding has been limited. However, in 2011,

the APA gave the new code for Miami (“Miami 21”) its National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice and

focused its spring training sessions on FBCs, so there are signs that its support for the movement is growing.

Source: Robert Steuteville, “Tysons Corner Plan, Miami 21 Honored by APA,” 12 January 2011.

http://newurbannetwork.com/article/tysons-corner-plan-miami-21-honored-apa-13858. Accessed 6 July 2011.17

One of these is Leslie E. Kettren, AICP, PCP, Form-Based Codes in 7-Steps: The Michigan Guidebook to Livability .

Milford, MI: Michigan Chapter, Congress for the New Urbanism, 2010. Published and available for purchase online

at the time of this writing at http://cnumichigan.memberlodge.org/books. 18 Robert Steuteville, Philip Langdon, et al., New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide, 4th ed., Ithaca, NY: New UrbanNews Publications, 2009. 12.19

A typological note: Throughout this paper, The New Urbanism is referred to as New Urbanism, with capitalized

letters. Form-based coding and historic preservation are not capitalized. While New Urbanists generally capitalize

the title in every use, capitalization here does not signify adherence to their beliefs. Rather, “New Urbanism” is a

vague terminology which could refer to a new urban idea or the like if left uncapitalized. On the other hand,

“historic preservation” is well-understood to be a specific movement whether capitalized or not.20

Joanna Lombard, The Architecture of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company , New York: Rizzoli, 2005. 44-47.21

Grant 8122

Grant 6223

Todd W. Bressi, ed. The Seaside Debates: A Critique of the New Urbanism. New York: Rizzoli, 2002. 18. These

words are in an essay by Stefanos Polyzoides entitled “The Congress for the New Urbanism” and were spoken in

the late 1980s by Jaquelin Robertson, dean of the University of Virginia’s architecture school during that period.24John A. Dutton, New American Urbanism: Re-forming the Suburban Metropolis, Milan: Skira, 2000. 29.

25Peter Katz, The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community , New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. 2-17.

26Grant 178. Not helping the movement’s credibility, Duany has actually been quoted as promoting the idea of

New Urbanism causing gentrification and displacement of the poor, seeing gentrification as a natural cycle for

well-designed urban areas. He has said “What spokesmen for the poor call gentrification is actually the timeless

cycle of a free society organically adjusting its habitat” (Source: Grant 70) However, Duany is noted to actively

encourage and thrive upon controversy, so it is unknown how much of what he says are his true beliefs and the

true intents of the New Urbanist movement.

http://newurbannetwork.com/article/tysons-corner-plan-miami-21-honored-apa-13858

http://cnumichigan.memberlodge.org/books

http://cnumichigan.memberlodge.org/books




117

27Robert Steuteville, “New Urban Neighborhoods Make Big Gains.” New Urban News, Jan.-Feb. 2004.

http://newurbannetwork.com/article/new-urban-neighborhoods-make-big-gains. Accessed 30 January 2011.28

Both developments are discussed in Bressi,ed., Seaside Debates. For Civano, see page 93 of that source. For

Cornell, see page 110.29

Sabina Deitrick and Cliff Ellis. “New Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study of Pittsburgh.” Journal of the

American Planning Association, Vol. 70 No. 4, Autumn 2004. 430-433.30

James R. Elliott, Kevin Fox Gotham, and Melinda J. Milligan. “Framing the Urban: Struggles Over HOPE VI and

New Urbanism in a Historic City.” City & Community 3:4 (Dec. 2004), 376.31

Meredith Marsh, ““Striking the Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street.” M.S. Thesis in

Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 2009. 100-123.32

Deitrick and Ellis, 436-437.33

Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the

American Dream, New York: North Point Press, 2000. 65.34

Steuteville, Langdon, et al. 14-17,21.35

Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 340, 344.36

Emily Talen, “Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of New

Urbanism.” Urban Studies 36:8 (1999), 1368.37

Grant 738

Emily Talen, “The Problem with Community in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature Vol, 15, No. 2: 171-183.39

On page 84, Jill Grant argues that public transportation is often not offered near new New Urbanist

developments. While her research appears to be extensive, she does not share specific sources for her research,

however so the basis of this statement is unknown. A wide variety of developers have been involved in the

construction of New Urbanist developments, so amenities vary widely by location and developer. While the ability

to use public transit is dependent on the transit infrastructure available, In the Chicago area, which has a relatively

high-quality public transportation system, recent New Urbanist developments appear to have at least made

attempts to be well-connected to public transportation. An example is the Prairie Crossing subdivision constructed

in 2004 and located in Grayslake, Illinois. Grayslake is an exurb of Chicago, located about forty miles north of its

city center. Nonetheless, Prairie Crossing is located across the street from two stations on Metra, Chicago’s

suburban commuter rail system. Source: Trine Tsouderos, “New Grayslake Homes Aim to Combat Sprawl,” Chicago

Tribune, December 15, 2004.

40 Randall Crane, “On Form Versus Function: Will the ‘New Urbanism’ Reduce Transit or Increase It?,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15 Winter 1996, 117-126. Available online at

http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=29. This source is currently fifteen years old, so more

recent research may have been done to directly correlate New Urbanism with higher use of public transportation,

but that research is unknown to the author.41

Grant 10042

Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 183.43

Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 185.44

Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 24-25.45

Robert Campbell, “Visions and Revisions: A Special Section Celebrating the National Trust’s 50th

Anniversary.”

Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol. 51, no. 5:Sept.-Oct. 1999. 16.46

Andres Duany, “Letters: New Urbanism Bites Back.” Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, Vol. 52, no. 1: Jan.-Feb. 2000. 8, 10.47

While he is not at the forefront of the dialog surrounding New Urbanism in the same way that Andres Duany is,

architect Stefanos Polyzoides, principal at experienced New Urbanist firm Moule & Polyzoides seems to have a

more respectful view of historic preservation. In reference to its value, he states "A genuine architectural culture

can only exist within the accumulated experience afforded by historical continuity. For architecture andurbanism to prosper as disciplines, they need the wisdom and guidance of enduring values, traditions,methods and ideas." (Source: Moule & Polyzoides website, retrieved 5 June 2011) In the early 1980s, beforeNew Urbanism became a wide-spread movement, Moule & Polyzoides was founded as a historic preservationfirm. (Source: Will Holloway, “A Sense of Place: A Southern California Firm Redefines the Relationship



118

between Architecture and Urbanism,” Period Hom es , November 2006. Accessed online at http://www.period-

homes.com/Previous-Issues-06/NovProfile06.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011.)48

http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes49

Design guidelines are typically not law in themselves, though they may be embedded in a design review process

that is law, such as a preservation design review. (Source: Kaizer Rangwala, “Why Design Guidelines, on their Own,

Don’t Work,” blog post on the New Urban Network website, 22 December 2010. Available online athttp://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/kaizer-rangwala/13778/why-design-guidelines-their-own-

don%E2%80%99t-work. Retrieved 5 June 2011.)50

History page of the website of the Form-Based Codes Institute, located at

http://www.formbasedcodes.org/history51

David Walters, Designing Community: Charrettes, Masterplans, and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam: Elsevier,

2007. 84-85.52

Walters 8853

Steuteville, Langdon, et al. 388.54

Peter Katz, “Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning.” Planning, Vol. 70, no. 10: Nov.

2004, 20.55

Personal communication with Carol Wyant, 28 February 2011.56

Bressi, ed., 59-6357

Miami Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, “Downtown Kendall Charrette: Charrette Master Plan

Report Executive Summary,” June 1998. Available online at

http://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/udc/Downtown_Kendall_Executive_Summary.pdf.Accessed 6 June 2011.58

Mary E. Madden and Bill Spikowksi, “Place Making with Form-Based Codes.” Urban Land Vol. 65, no. 9:Sept.

2006, 176.59

http://www.sacog.org/complete-

streets/toolkit/files/docs/Dover%20Kohl%20&%20Partners_Columbia%20Pike%20Form%20Based%20Flyer.pdf 60

Ben Giles, “Arlington Ponders Balance on Columbia Pike Development,” Washington Examiner , Jan. 20, 2011.

Accessed online at http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/01/arlington-ponders-balance-columbia-

pike-development. Retrieved 5 June 2011.61

Kafia Hosh, “Columbia Pike Streetcar Plans Take Shape,” Washington Post Nov. 16, 2010. Available online at

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/columbia_pike_streetcar.html. Retrieved 5 June 2011.

62 Personal Communication with Carol Wyant, 20 June 2011.63

Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler, 13 April 2011.64

To download the code, go to http://www.smartcodecentral.com DPZ does charge for copies of the Code

Calibration Manual.65

The Neighborhood Conservation Code is available free of charge at http://www.transect.org/codes.html. The

code is encouraged and intended to be modified further to include the specific needs of the individual community.66

Emerson 57-5967

In-Person Interview with Carol Wyant, 20 November 2010.68

Jonathan Hiskes, “Digital Designer Shows What Future Towns Could Look Like,” Grist (online publication), 5

March 2010. Available at http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urban-advantage-steve-price-envisioning-

future-urbanism. Retrieved 5 June 2011. The company’s website is located at http://www.urban-advantage.com/. 69

Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 17-1870

Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 2871






Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford, 84-8577

Emerson, 53-5578

Emerson, 65-66

http://www.period-homes.com/Previous-Issues-06/NovProfile06.html



http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/kaizer-rangwala/13778/why-design-guidelines-their-own-don%E2%80%99t-work


http://www.formbasedcodes.org/history

http://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/udc/Downtown_Kendall_Executive_Summary.pdf

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/01/arlington-ponders-balance-columbia-pike-development


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/columbia_pike_streetcar.html

http://www.transect.org/codes.html

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urban-advantage-steve-price-envisioning-future-urbanism


http://www.urban-advantage.com/

http://www.urban-advantage.com/



http://www.transect.org/codes.html





http://www.formbasedcodes.org/history







119

79Walters 110

80“The Dangerous Minds of Urban Planners,” Open Market blog, http://www.openmarket.org/2010/08/12/the-

dangerous-minds-of-urban-planners/ Published Aug. 12, 2010. Accessed 6 February 2011.81

Jeffrey R. Purdy, AICP, “Form-Based Codes – New Approach to Zoning.” Smart Growth Tactics Issue no. 28: Dec.

2006. Published by the Michigan Association for Planning. http://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf.

Accessed 6 February 2011. 5.82

Howard Kelly, “Frank Lloyd Wright and Form-Based Codes”, blog post on blog entitled Old Cities, Good Ideas, 12

June 2010. Available online at http://oldcitiesgoodideas.blogspot.com/2010/06/flw-and-form-based-codes.html.

Accessed 5 June 2011. In this post, the author recounts an episode at a planning meeting in Riverhead, New York

where an older architect stood up and explained that good architecture is “poetry” and that he believed that good

architecture was impossible under restrictions as prescriptive as form-based codes. The architect posed the

question as to whether Frank Lloyd Wright’s work would have been possible under a form-based code? The

blogger believes that, since his work is contextual with the surrounding neighborhood in Oak Park, for example,

Frank Lloyd Wright’s working actually would be legal under a form-based code.83

Purdy 584

Purdy 585

John M. Barry, “Form-Based Codes: Measured Success through Both Mandatory and Optional Implementation.”

Connecticut Law Review Vol. 41, no. 1: Nov. 2008, 322.86

Langdon, Philip. “The Not-So-Secret Code,” Planning, Vol. 72 No. 1, Jan. 2006, Chicago: American Planning

Association. 24-29.87

Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, 20888

Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck, 21089

Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 283-28490

There are entire suburbs near Chicago, River Grove as an example, that have always been based around their

commuter rail stations and have relatively dense, walkable urban forms – in fact, their urban form is not that much

different from the dense city of Chicago itself – except that the entire communities are designed in a vernacular

modernism that is mostly buff colors of brick and stone. It is consistent and has a sense of order and yet each

house or building is slightly different, not unlike the older urban neighborhoods that New Urbanists admire.91

Steuteville, Langdon, et al., 280-28192

Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 41-47.

93 Ames, David and Richard Wagner, eds. Design and Historic Preservation: The Challenge of Compatibility. Newark,DE: University of Delaware Press, 2009. 30. These points are brought up in an essay entitled “Defining Context:

Promoting a Greater Level of Design Innovation in Historic Districts,” by Kate R. Lemos of Beyer Blinder Belle

Architects & Planners.94

Grant 18195

The Calhoun Street plan for Charleston, discussed in the Charleston Case Study, specifies rowhouses as a

building type. Currently, the entire city of Charleston has exactly three rowhouses and they create an interesting

historic grouping in themselves. It is the view of some preservationists in Charleston that introducing rowhouses to

the city is not historically appropriate and shows a lack of due diligence on the part of the consultant involved in

the plan. However, as is shown in the case study, the introduction of this building type was made in this draft code

as a compromise to add historic forms while increasing density in the targeted area of the city. Source: Charleston

plan, and interview with Robert Gurley96

Burdette 1997

Grant 18198

Jill Grant applies this claim of lack of diversity and urban messiness to all New Urban communities. See Grant

183.99

During a phone interview on 25 January 2011, James Lindberg, who worked on the new Denver code, expressed

a wish that the new code had included a larger range of building types, because he didn’t feel the set that was

included in the code was adequate for use in historic neighborhoods. In the position statement quoted from in the

second case study, Robert Gurley of Charleston expresses concern that the form-based code may not offer enough

options to create the finely-grained fenestration patterns of historic neighborhoods.

http://oldcitiesgoodideas.blogspot.com/2010/06/flw-and-form-based-codes.html




120

100Joseph P. Schwietermann and Dana Caspall, “Zoning” in The Encyclopedia of Chicago. Available online at

http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1401.html. Accessed 6 June 2011.101

The Chicago Zoning Ordinance has a minimum parking ratio of one off-street parking space per non-

government-subsidized dwelling unit, regardless of the size of the dwelling unit or the density of the development.

The minimum parking ratio can be reduced by 50% if the building is an adaptive reuse project if its front door is

within 600 feet of a subway or commuter rail station entrance. New construction projects can have their minimumparking ratio reduced by up to 25% if their entrance is within 600 feet of a subway or commuter rail station

entrance, but only with special permission of the Zoning Administrator. Thus, even a new building built directly

adjacent to a subway line is required to have a minimum of 0.5 off-street parking space per dwelling unit. Since,

typically the courtyard buildings that make up large parts of Chicago’s neighborhoods currently have no off-street

parking and are not within 600 feet of a rail line, they would be required to quite a significant number of parking

spaces.102

In order to understand the density reduction a developer would encounter if attempting to replace one of these

buildings, the current allowable zoning was checked for one a typical one of these buildings in a typical

neighborhood and location where one might be located. The building tested is located at 4827-33 N. Rockwell Ave.

in the Lincoln Square neighborhood. Like all the buildings around it, it was built in the early 1920s. It has

approximately 27 units and a building square footage of approximately 29,250 square feet on a lot area of

approximately 11,599 square feet (Floor Area Ratio = 2.52.) The building currently has no off-street parking and is

three stories tall over a raised English basement and takes up nearly the entire area of its lot, excluding its central

courtyard. In contrast, most of Lincoln Square is zoned RS-3, which means a multi-unit building with three or more

units would not even be legal to be built there, even though many exist grandfathered in. However, to test a

conservative case, the building in question is located in an RT-4 zone, the densest zone commonly found in this

neighborhood and a zone type that allows low-density multi-unit buildings. Therefore, under its current zoning, a

new building on lot would only be allowed to have 11 units with a maximum Floor-Area Ratio of 1.20, so a

maximum building square footage of 13,200 square feet. In addition, the building would have to be set back from

the street, rear alley, and adjacent lots on all sides and would be required to have 11 parking spaces. Thus, ignoring

the increased cost of providing the off-street parking spaces, the developer would only be able to legally build 45%

of the current floor area and 41% of the units that currently exist on the site, grandfathered into the existing 85-

year old building. From this basis, it would be economically unwise for the developer to tear down the existing

building, and so the conclusion that many of these older buildings stand because new construction cannot be build

even close to as dense seems to be sound. Since most cities continue to have conventional zoning ordinancesintended to limit density, just as Chicago does, it seems likely that many older buildings around the country

continue to stand for this reason.

Sources: Chicago Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 17-2 and 17-10; Chicago Zoning Map, available online at

https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/. Accessed 6 June 2011; Cook County Assessor online property

assessment webpage for the chosen example property.103

Phone Interview with James Lindberg, 25 January 2011. Interestingly, the City of Chicago does have an

ordinance on the books that was passed in 2005 and requires all construction projects in the city from 2007

onward to recycle 50% of all recyclable construction waste and submit forms to the city as proof after the project

is completed. However, the ordinance appears to be little-enforced. Thus, in some municipalities, requiring

developers to make better use of construction waste may be a question of better enforcement more than political

will. If such laws were better upheld, demolition costs to developers could increase, in some cases prompting them

to reuse rather than demolition. Ordinance description:

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doe/supp_info/construction_anddemolitiondebrisrecycling.html.

Accessed 4 July 2011.104

Donald C. Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, Chicago: Planners Press, 2004. 153-157.105

Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler, Principal, Code Studio. 13 April 2011.106

Josh White, “As Good as New?,” Canadian Architect Nov. 2007. Available online at

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000217108&type=Print%20Archives. Accessed 6 June

2011.

http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1401.html

https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000217108&type=Print%20Archives


https://gisapps.cityofchicago.org/zoning/

http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1401.html



121

107LEED standards for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. It is America’s leading system for rating the

sustainable of buildings, especially new construction. It is deeply flawed, especially in terms of its lack of

recognition of historic preservation as a sustainable alternative. Nonetheless, it is a respected and widely-used

system in the design world.108

In the LEED system, guidelines for natural ventilation are benchmarked to The Carbon Trust Good Practice Guide

237 – Natural Ventilation in Domestic Buildings – A Guide for Designers; Developers and Owners (1998).109

US Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey . Accessed at

http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cbecs/contents.html. This information is from Table C1. The average energy

consumption for commercial buildings built before 1920 was 80,127 btu/sq. ft., for 1990s buildings it was 88,834

bt/sq. ft., and for early 2000s buildings, It was 79,703 btu/sq. ft. For all years between these dates, average energy

consumption was higher, peaking at 100,077 btu/sq. ft. during the 1980s.110

City of Denver Department of Community Planning and Development. Denver Zoning Code. As adopted June 25,

2010. Section 9.4.3.7. Available at http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/432507/Default.aspx. Accessed 15 December

2010.111

The proposed code was developed in conjunction with Farr Associates, a respected firm specializing in

sustainable urbanism based in Chicago. Often considered an “outsider” during the code planning process, many of

their ideas were rejected out of hand. The major changes made to the code based on community opposition after

it was initially proposed were: require building coverage on only 25 percent of the lot but offer incentives for

more; allow parking along the side of the building where there is space; allow nonconforming structures to be

rebuilt after fires or other disasters; allow drive-through windows. (Source: Mary Ann Ford, “Main Street Accord:

Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code,” The Pantagraph August 14, 2010, A1) The drive-through

window issue appears to have been quite contentious. As Dale Nafziger stated it in his editorial deriding the

proposed code in The Pantagraph, “The original plan didn’t allow for drive-throughs. That affected McDonald’s,

Walgreen’s, dry cleaners, and more. The uproar over that absurd proposal caused it to be quickly withdrawn.”

(Source: Dale Nafziger, “Form-Based Code is Problem, Not Answer,” The Pantagraph June 7, 2009, E5)112

Mary Ann Ford, “Main Street Accord: Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code,” The Pantagraph

August 14, 2010, A1. The Pantagraph is the local newspaper of Bloomington, Illinois.113

Mary Ann Ford, “Optional Code? Normal Mayor Wants to Give Developers a Choice,” The Pantagraph January

12, 2011, A1.114

Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 221

115 Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 126116

Historical sketch derived from “A Short History of a Long Street.” From City of Denver, “East Colfax Plan,” 2004.117

Phone Interview with James Lindberg, 25 January 2011.118

Phone Interview with Steven Oliver, Department of Development Services, City of Denver. 23 March 2011.119

The Blueprint Denver report and map are available online, at the time of this writing, at this URL:

http://www.denvergov.org/Planning/BlueprintDenver/tabid/431883/Default.aspx120

Denver Community Planning and Development. “East Colfax Plan: Main Street Zoning: Process, Outcomes,

Lessons.” Powerpoint presentation for Railvolution 2006. www.railvolution.com/rv2006_pdfs/rv2006_227b.pdf.

Accessed 4 April 2011. 121

Denver Community Planning and Development. “East Colfax Plan.”122

An example section like this would be Denver Zoning Code, Section 4.3.3.4123

Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.7.1. This is the general height limit for residential structures throughout the

code.124

Denver Zoning Code, Section 12.4.7.6 (B) and (C)125

Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.4.3.7126

Denver Zoning Code, Section 9.4.4.8127

Denver Zoning Code, Section 12.4.5.3, see Table128

Denver Zoning Code, Sections 13.1.2.3 (G) and Section 13.1.2.2. While this provision is seen in many codes

across the country, it was noted as a preservation-sensitive provision of the new Denver code during phone

interview with Steven Oliver.129

Phone Interview with Steven Oliver, 23 March 2011.

http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/432507/Default.aspx




122

130Page & Turnbull, “Vision | Community | Heritage: A Preservation Plan for Charleston, South Carolina,” 2008.

134. Available online, at the time of this writing, at: http://www.charlestoncity.info/dept/content.aspx?nid=1247131

Page & Turnbull, 106.132

Page & Turnbull, 47-48.133

Page & Turnbull, 138.134

Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, “Special Area Plan: Calhoun Street-East/Cooper River Waterfront,” 2010. 20-29.Available online, at the time of this writing, at:

http://www.charlestoncity.info/shared/docs/0/calhounst_plan_web.pdf 135

Chan Krieger Sieniewicz 64136

Accessible, at the time of this writing, at:

http://www.preservationsociety.org/program_currentdetail.asp?icID=25137

Chan Krieger Sieniewicz 27-28138

Phone Interview with Robert Gurley, Vice President of the Preservation Society of Charleston, 2 February 2011.139

Phone Interview with Lee Einsweiler140

“Riverside: A Master Planning Community.” Presentation by Arista Strungys.

www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Resources/22470_DavisNikolas.pdf . Accessed 8 February 2011. 141

Walking tour of Riverside led by Charles Pipal, Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission142

Interview with Kathleen Rush, Former Village Manager of Riverside143

Arista Strungys, “Riverside: A Master Planning Community”144

Phone Interview with Arista Strungys, Project Manager, Camiros, Ltd. 28 March 2011.145

Phone Interview with Kathleen Rush. 22 March 2011.146

In-Person Interview with Charles Pipal, Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission. 10 March 2011.147

Phone Interview with Arista Strungys148

Riverside Zoning Code, Section 10-4-3 (G).149

Phone Interview with Arista Strungys150

Phone Interview with Steven Oliver151

Kaizer Rangwala, “Hybrid codes versus form-based codes,” New Urban News April/May 2009. 12-13.152

Available for download at http://www.formbasedcodes.org/sample-rfq153

This was stated to be the case in Riverside, Illinois in the early 2000s, because their existing zoning code was

perceived as being so outmoded as to be completely ineffective. (Source: Interview with Kathleen Rush) In many

cities, the Planned Unit Development process has also become very commonly-used as a substitute for the existingzoning code. In the Planned Unit Development process, a custom zoning code is essentially written in conjunction

with city planning staff for a development where it is believed by the developer that the existing zoning will not

allow them to complete the development as desired. (Source: Emerson 34-35)



123

Bibliography

----. “The Dangerous Minds of Urban Planners,” Open Market blog,

http://www.openmarket.org/2010/08/12/the-dangerous-minds-of-urban-planners/ Published

Aug. 12, 2010. Accessed 6 February 2011.

Ames, David and Richard Wagner, eds. Design & Historic Preservation: The Challenge of Compatibility. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2009. 17-40.

Barry, John M. “Form-Based Codes: Measured Success Through Both Mandatory and Optional

Implementation.” Connecticut Law Review. Vol. 41 no. 1 (Nov. 2008): 305-337.

Berg, Nate. “Brave New Codes.” Architect. Vol. 99 no. 7 (July 2010): 50-53.

Bohl, Charles C. “New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for DistressedInner-City Neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate. 2000. v. 2, 761-801.

Bressi, Todd W.The Seaside Debates: A Critique of the New Urbanism.

New York: Rizzoli, 2002.

Burdette, Jason T. “Form-Based Codes: A Cure for the Cancer Called Euclidean Zoning?” M.S. Thesis,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004.

Campbell, Robert. “Visions and Revisions: A Special Section Celebrating the National Trust’s 50th

Anniversary.” Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation Vol.

51, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct. 1999): 9-24.

City of Denver Department of Community Planning and Development. Denver Zoning Code. As

adopted June 25, 2010. Available at http://www.denvergov.org/tabid/432507/Default.aspx. Accessed 15 December 2010.

Congress for the New Urbanism. “Charter of the New Urbanism.” http://www.cnu.org/charter

Crane, Randall. “On Form Versus Function: Will the ‘New Urbanism’ Reduce Transit or Increase It?,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15 Winter 1996, 117-126. Available online at

http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/rpubs/pubdetails.cfm?ID=29.

Deitrick, Sabina and Cliff Ellis. “New Urbanism in the Inner City: A Case Study of Pittsburgh.” Journal of the American Planning Association Vol. 70 Issue 4 (Autumn 2004): 426-442.

Duany, Andrés. “New Urbanism Bites Back.” Preservation: The Magazine of the National Trust for

Historic Preservation Vol. 52, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2000): 8, 10.

Duany, Andrés and Emily Talen. “Making the Good Easy: The SmartCode Alternative.” Fordham

Urban Law Journal 29:4 (April 2002), 1445-1468.

Duany, Andrés, Elizabeth Plater-Zybek, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the

Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000.





124

Duany Plater-Zybek and Company. “Welcome to SmartCode Central.” SmartCode Central.

http://www.smartcodecentral.org/index.html (Accessed October 7, 2010)

Dutton, John A. New American Urbanism: Re-forming the Suburban Metropolis. Milan: Skira, 2000.

Einsweiler, Lee. Principal, Code Studio. Phone Interview, 13 April 2011.

Elliott, James R., Kevin Fox Gotham, and Melinda J. Milligan. “Framing the Urban: Struggles Over HOPE VI and New Urbanism in a Historic City.” City & Community 3:4 (Dec. 2004), 373-394.

Ellis, Cliff. “The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals.” Journal of Urban Design. Vol. 7, no. 3, pp.

263-293.

Emerson, Chad. The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute,

2007.

Ford, Mary Ann. “Main Street Accord: Group Agrees on Some Changes to Form-Based Code,” The

PantagraphAugust 14, 2010, A1

Ford, Mary Ann. “Optional Code? Normal Mayor Wants to Give Developers a Choice,” The

Pantagraph January 12, 2011, A1.

Freeman, Allen. “Old Neighborhood, New Urbanism: What Architect Raymond Gindroz Envisions for

the Streets of Baltimore.” Preservation. 1998 Jan.-Feb. v. 50 no. 1, pp. 18-20.

Gantt, Harvey. “New Urbanism Meets the Existing City.” Places Vol. 12 Issue 1 (October 1998): 84-86.

Giles, Ben. “Arlington Ponders Balance on Columbia Pike Development,” Washington Examiner , Jan.20, 2011. Accessed online at http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2011/01/arlington-

ponders-balance-columbia-pike-development. Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Grant, Jill. Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice. London:

Routledge, 2006.

Gurley, Robert. Vice President, Preservation Society of Charleston. Phone Interview, 2 February 2011.

Hayden, Dolores. Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

1995.

Herlitz, Jeff and Martin Zimmerman. “Community and the Form-Based Code.” Urban Land. 2009

June, v. 68 no. 6 pp. 88-90.

Hiskes, Jonathan. “Digital Designer Shows What Future Towns Could Look Like,” Grist (online

publication), 5 March 2010. Available at http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-05-urban-

advantage-steve-price-envisioning-future-urbanism. Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Holloway, Will. “A Sense of Place: A Southern California Firm Redefines the Relationship between

Architecture and Urbanism,” Period Homes, November 2006. Accessed online at











125

http://www.period-homes.com/Previous-Issues-06/NovProfile06.html.Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Hosh, Kafia. “Columbia Pike Streetcar Plans Take Shape,” Washington Post Nov. 16, 2010. Available

online at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dr-gridlock/2010/11/columbia_pike_streetcar.html.

Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1985.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.

Janson, Jean Ellen. “An Analysis of Public and Private Design Review: Neo-Traditional DevelopmentStandards and Historic Preservation Ordinances.” Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania,

1993.

Katz, Peter. “Form First: The New Urbanist Alternative to Conventional Zoning.” Planning. 2004 Nov.,

v. 70 no. 10, pp. 16-21.

Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1994.

Kelly, Howard. “Frank Lloyd Wright and Form-Based Codes”, blog post on blog entitled Old Cities,Good Ideas, 12 June 2010. Available online at

http://oldcitiesgoodideas.blogspot.com/2010/06/flw-and-form-based-codes.html. Accessed 5

June 2011.

Kettren, Leslie E. Form-Based Codes in 7-Steps: The Michigan Guidebook to Livability. Milford, MI:

Michigan Chapter, Congress for the New Urbanism, 2010.

Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’s Man-Made

Landscape. New York: Touchstone, 1993.

Langdon, Philip. “The Not-So-Secret Code: Across the U.S., Form-Based Codes are Putting New

Urbanists Ideas into Practice.” Planning. 2006 Jan., v. 72 no. 1 pp. 24-29.

Levi, Daniel J. “Does History Matter? Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Fake Historic Architecture and

Historic Preservation.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2005 Summer, v. 22

no. 2, pp. 148-159.

Lindberg, James. Director of Preservation Initiatives, Mountains/Plains Office, National Trust for

Historic Preservation. Phone Interview, 25 January 2011, and subsequent personalcommunication.

Lindberg, James. “Form-Based Codes and Historic Preservation: An Opportunity for Collaboration.”

Unpublished white paper.

Lombard, Joanna. The Architecture of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. New York: Rizzoli, 2005.









126

Madden, Mary E. and Bill Spikowski. “Place Making with Form-Based Codes.” Urban Land. 2006

Sept. v. 65 no. 9 pp. 174-178.

Marsh, Meredith. “Striking the Balance: Finding a Place for New Urbanism on Main Street.” M.S.

Thesis in Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania, 2009.

Miami Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, “Downtown Kendall Charrette: CharretteMaster Plan Report Executive Summary,” June 1998. Available online athttp://www.miamidade.gov/planzone/udc/Downtown_Kendall_Executive_Summary.pdf.

Accessed 6 June 2011.

Moe, Richard and Carter Wilkie. Changing Places: Rebuilding Community in the Age of Sprawl. NewYork: Henry Holt & Co., 1997.

Muschamp, Herbert. “Can New Urbanism Find Room for the Old?” New York Times, June 2, 1996,Architecture View section.

Nafziger, Dale. “Form-Based Code is Problem, Not Answer,”The Pantagraph

June 7, 2009, E5

Nolon, John R. “Flexibility in the Law: The Re-engineering of Zoning to Prevent Fragmented

Landscapes.” New York Law Journal Feb. 18, 1998: 5-11.

Oliver, Steven. Department of Development Services, City and County of Denver. Phone Interview, 23

March 2011.

Parolek, Daniel G., et al. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners,Urban Designers, Municipalities,

and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Pipal, Charles. Chairman, Riverside Historic Preservation Commission. In-Person Interview, 10 March

2011, and walking tour of Riverside.

Purdy, Jeffrey R., AICP. “Form-Based Codes – New Approach to Zoning.” Smart Growth Tactics Issue

no. 28: Dec. 2006. Published by the Michigan Association for Planning.

http://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf Last accessed Feb. 6, 2011.

Rangwala, Kaizer. “Hybrid Codes versus Form-Based Codes.” New Urban News April/May 2009: 12-

13.

Rangwala, Kaizer. “Why Design Guidelines, on their Own, Don’t Work,” blog post on the New Urban

Network website, 22 December 2010. Available online at http://newurbannetwork.com/news-

opinion/blogs/kaizer-rangwala/13778/why-design-guidelines-their-own-don%E2%80%99t-work. Retrieved 5 June 2011.

Rush, Kathleen. Former Village Manager, Village of Riverside. Phone Interview, 22 March 2011.

Shoup, Donald C. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: Planners Press, 2004.

Sorlien, Sandy. Neighborhood Conservation Code: A Transect-Based Infill Code for Planning and











127

Zoning. Released by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company. Available online at

http://www.transect.org/codes.html. Accessed 6 June 2011.

Steuteville, Robert. “New Urban Neighborhoods Make Big Gains.” New Urban News, Jan.-Feb. 2004.

http://newurbannetwork.com/article/new-urban-neighborhoods-make-big-gains. Accessed 30January 2011.

Steuteville, Robert. “Tysons Corner Plan, Miami 21 Honored by APA.” 12 January 2011.http://newurbannetwork.com/article/tysons-corner-plan-miami-21-honored-apa-13858.

Accessed 6 July 2011.

Steuteville, Robert, et al. New Urbanism: Best Practices Guide. Ithaca, NY: New Urban NewsPublications, 2009.

Strungys, Arista. “Riverside: A Master Planning Community.” Powerpoint Presentation.

www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Resources/22470_DavisNikolas.pdf . Accessed 8 February

2011.

Strungys, Arista. Project Manager, Camiros, Ltd. Phone Interview, 28 March 2011.

Talen, Emily. “The Problem with Community in Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature Vol, 15, No.

2: 171-183.

Talen, Emily. “Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine

of New Urbanism.” Urban Studies Vol. 36, No. 8 (1999): 1361-1379.

Talen, Emily. “The Social Goals of New Urbanism.” Housing Policy Debate Vol. 13, Issue 1 (2002):

165-188.

Tsouderos, Trine. “New Grayslake Homes Aim to Combat Sprawl,” Chicago Tribune, December 15,

2004.

Vasquez, Karen. “New Planning Tool Adopted.” Urban Land. 2003 June, v. 62 no. 6, p. 32.

Walters, David. Designing Community: Charrettes, Master Plans, and Form-Based Codes. Amsterdam:Elsevier/Architectural Press, 2007.

Wells, Jeremy. Principal City Planner and Preservation Lead, Landmarks Preservation Division,Department of Community Planning & Development, City and County of Denver. Phone

Interview, 28 February 2011.

White, Josh. “As Good as New?,” Canadian Architect Nov. 2007. Available online at


Accessed 6 June 2011.

Willis, Carol. Form Follows Function: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. New York:

Princeton Architectural Press, 1995.







128

Wyant, Carol. Executive Director, Form-Based Codes Institute. In-Person Interview, 20 November

2010, and subsequent personal communication.



Appendix A:

The Charter of the New Urbanism

Source: Steuteville, Langdon, et al.

129


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/form-based-codes-and-historic-preservation-a-case-study-pri130


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/form-based-codes-and-historic-preservation-a-case-study-pri131



Appendix B:

Sample Form-Based Code Micro-Scale Survey Form

Source: Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford

132



133



134



Appendix C:

Comparison of Regulating Plans

Sample Regulating Plans from the

Heart of Peoria Land Development Code

(Frontage-based)

and the

City of Benicia Downtown Mixed-Use Master Plan

(Lot-based)

135



Sample Regulating Plans

From the


Peoria, Illinois

Adopted 2007

136



H e a r t o f P e o r i a 6 - 5 L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e

6.2 SHERIDAN TRIANGLE

137



H e a r t o f P e o r i a 6 - 1 0 L a n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e

6.3 PROSPECT ROAD

138




6.4 WEST MAIN

139




6.5 WAREHOUSE DISTRICT

140



Sample Regulating Plan

From the

City of Benicia Mixed-Use Master Plan

Benicia, California

Adopted 2006

141



Draft: 12.22.06

4-3Downtown Mixed Use Master PlanOpticos Design, Inc.

Chapter 4: Form-Based Code

Regulating Plan

Zone Key

Town Core

Town Core-OpenNeighborhood Center

Neighborhood General

Neighborhood General - Open

Civic/Institutional

1 s t S t r e e t

W .

2 n d S t r e e t

E .

2 n d S t r e e t

K Street

J Street

I Street

H Street

G Street

F Street

E Street

B Street

C St.

D Street

142



Appendix D:

Example Form-Based Standards

Excerpts from


and


and

Denver Form-Based Zoning Code

143




From the


Peoria, Illinois

Adopted 2007

144




A. West Ma in - Neighbo rhood Center

HEIG HT SITIN G

1. Building Heighta. The height of the principal building is measured in stories.

b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but nogreater than 5 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on theregulating plan.

c. An attic story shall not count against the maximum story height.

2. Parking Structure HeightWhere a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (builtafter 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildingseave or parapet height.

3. Ground Story Height: Commerce Usesa. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater

than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to amaximum finished floor elevation of eighteen 18 inches above thesidewalk.

b. The ground story shall have at least12 feet of clear interior height(floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for aminimum depth of at least 25 feet.

c. The maximum story height for the ground story is 20 feet.

4. Ground Story Height: Residential Unitsa. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more

than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the requiredbuilding line.

b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of atleast 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 17 feet.

5. Upper Story Heighta. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for stories other than the

ground story is 12 feet.

b. At least eighty 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet.

6. MezzaninesMezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of thestory in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as full stories.

7. Street Wall Heighta. A street wall not less than 6 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in

height shall be required along any required building line frontage thatis not otherwise occupied by the principal building on the lot.

b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacentpublic sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the groundelevation once construction is complete.

8. OtherWhere a West Main Center site is located within 40 feet of an existingsingle-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapetheight for that portion of the West Main Center site shall be 32 feet.This requirement shall supersede the minimum story heightrequirement.

9. Street Facadea. On each lot the building façade shall be built to the required building

line for at least eighty 80% of the required building line (RBL) length.

b. The building façade shall be built to the required building line within 30feet of a block corner. The ground floor façade, within 7 feet of theblock corner may be chamfered to form a corner entry.

c. These portions of the building façade (the required minimum build-to)may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except asotherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, and balconies.

10. Buildable Areaa. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these building

envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least ten 10% of the total buildablearea shall be preserved on every lot. such contiguous open area maybe located anywhere behind the parking setback, either at grade or atthe second story.

c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area.

11. Side Lot SetbacksThere are no side lot setbacks except: on a lot where a common lot line isshared with a property located within a single-family residential zoning

district, the principal building shall be setback at least 10 feet from theshared lot line.

12. Garage and Parkinga. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from

any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unlessotherwise designated on the regulating plan.

b. Garage entries shall have a clear height of no greater than16 feet nor aclear width exceeding 24 feet.

c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind theparking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade.

d. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking.

e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated requiredbuilding line.

13. AlleysThere is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access,there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line.

14. Corner LotsCorner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full requiredbuilding line length – unless otherwise specified in this code.

15. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatmenta. A street wall shall be required along any required building line frontage

that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wall shall belocated not more than 8 inches behind the required building line.

b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a common lotline not otherwise occupied by a building.

c. Where a West Main Center site abuts an R-4 property, a gardenwall/street wall, 4 to 6 feet in height, shall be constructed within 1 footof the R-4 property.

145




B. West Main - Neighb orhood Ce nter

ELEM ENTS USE

1. Windows and Doorsa. Blank lengths of wall exceeding 20 linear feet are prohibited on all

required building lines.

b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise atleast 40%, but not more than ninety 90%, of the facade (measured asa percentage of the facade between floor levels).

c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise atleast twenty 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story(measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).

2. Building Projectionsa. Balconies and stoops shall not project closer than 5 feet to a common

lot line.

b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings,balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by thecode, shall encroach beyond the required building line.

c. Awnings shall project a minimum of 4 feet and a maximum of within 1foot of back of curb (where there are no street trees) or 1 foot into thetree lawn (where there are street trees.)

d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shallmaintain a clear height of at least 10 feet.

e. Awnings may have supporting posts at their outer edge provided thatthey:

f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the Facade and thesupport posts or columns of the awnings.

g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 4 feet widerunning adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts.

3. Doors/Entries At least one functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along the groundstory facade of each building and at intervals not greater than 60 linear feet.

4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate nowider than 6 feet shall be permitted wi thin any required street wall.

5. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house commerce or residential uses. See heightspecifications above for specific requirements unique to each use.

6. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house residential or commerce uses. No

restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless

they are second story extensions equal to or less than the area of theground story use.

b. No commerce use is permitted above a residential use.

c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof isconfigured as an attic story.

7. Permitted Usesa. Residential uses shall be considered to encompass all of the

Residential use categories, as defined in Article 5.6.

b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of theCommercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories exceptpassenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article5.6.

c. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

146




C. West Main – Loc al Com merce

HEIG HT SITIN G


b. Each principal building shall be at least 18 feet in height, but nogreater than 2 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on theregulating plan


2. Parking Structure HeightWhere a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (builtafter 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the building’seave or parapet height.

3. Ground Story Height: Commerce Usesa. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater

than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to amaximum finished floor elevation of eighteen 18 inches above thesidewalk.

b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height(floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for aminimum depth of at least 25 feet.




b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of atleast 9 feet and a maximum floor to f loor story height of 16 feet.

5. Upper Stories HeightThe maximum floor-to-floor story height for upper stories is 12 feet. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior floor to ceilingheight of at least 9 feet.

6. MezzaninesMezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of thestory in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as a full story.

7. Street Wall and Fence Height A street wall not less than 4 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in heightshall be required along any required building line that is not otherwiseoccupied by a building.

8. Other

Where a local commerce site is located within 40 feet of an existingsingle-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapetheight for that portion of the local site shall be 32 feet.


line for at least 70% of the required building line length.

b. The building façade shall be built to the required building line within 30feet of a block corner.

c. These portions of the building façade (the required minimum build-to)

may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except asotherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, front porches andbalconies.


envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 20% of the total buildable areashall be preserved at grade on every lot. Such contiguous open areamay be located anywhere behind the parking setback.


d. Parking/garage is permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

11. Side Lot SetbacksThere are no required side setbacks except: on a lot where a common lotline is shared with a property located within an existing single familydistrict, the building, parking and storage areas shall be set back at least10 feet from the shared lot line.

12. Garage and Parkinga. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away from

any block corner or another garage entry on the same block, unlessotherwise designated on the regulating plan.

b. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind theparking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. Atgrade parking lots are exempt from this setback when applicable streetwalls are installed per Section 6.6.

c. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking.

d. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designated requiredbuilding line.

13. AlleysThere is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley access,there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lot line.

14. Corner LotsCorner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required buildingline length – unless otherwise specified in this code.

15. Frontage WidthsThe minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individual side lotsetbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 100 feet of continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet isrequired between each such attached structure.

147




D. West Ma in – Loc al Com merc e

ELEM ENTS USE



b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise atleast twenty 20%, but not more than 80%, of the facade area(measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).

c. Windows on the upper story facades shall comprise at least 20%, butno more than 60%, of the facade area per story (measured as apercentage of the facade between floor levels).


lot line.

b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings,balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by theCode, shall encroach beyond the required building line.


d. Awnings that project over the sidewalk portion of a street-space shallmaintain a clear height of at least 10 feet except as otherwiseprovided for signs, street lighting and similar appurtenances.


f. Have a minimum of 8 feet clear width between the facade and thesupport posts or columns of the awning.

g. Provide for a continuous public access easement at least 6 feet widerunning adjacent and parallel to the awning columns/posts

3. Doors/Entriesa. Functioning entry door(s) shall be provided along ground story

facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet

b. Each ground story unit shall have direct access to the street.

4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate nowider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

5. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses.See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique to eachuse.

6. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses.

No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper storiesunless they are second story extensions equal to or less than the areaof the ground story use.

b. No commerce or industrial use is permitted above a residential use.

c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof isconfigured as an attic story.



b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of theCommercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories exceptpassenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article5.6.

c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Industrialuse categories except the heavy industrial and waste-related services,as defined in Article 5.6.

d. Use Standards as stated in Section 5.3 shall be applicable.

148




E. West Ma in - Loc al

HEIG HT SITIN G


b. Each principal building shall be at least 2 stories in height, but nogreater than 3 stories in height, except as otherwise provided on theregulating plan


2. Parking Structure HeightWhere a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (builtafter 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the building’seave or parapet height.

3. Ground Story Heighta. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more



4. Upper Stories Heighta. The maximum floor-to-floor story height for upper stories is 12 feet.

b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior floor to ceilingheight of at least 9 feet.

5. Mezzanines

Mezzanines having a floor area greater than 1/3 of the floor area of thestory in which the mezzanine is situated shall be counted as a full story.

6. Street Wall and Fence Height A street wall not less than 4 feet in height or greater than 8 feet in heightshall be required along any required building line that is not otherwiseoccupied by a building.

7. OtherWhere a local site is located within 40 feet of an existing single-familyresidential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapet height for thatportion of the local site shall be 32 feet. This requirement shallsupersede the minimum story requirement.

8. Street Facadea. On each lot the building façade shall be built parallel to the required

building line for at least 70% of the required building line length.

b. The front porch or stoop shall be built to the RBL.

c. The building façade or front porch shall be built to the RBL within 20feet of a block corner.

9. Buildable Areaa. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these

building envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 20% of the total buildablearea shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open areamay be located anywhere behind the parking setback at grade.

c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, steps,or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area.

d. Parking is permitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

10. Side Lot SetbacksThere are no required side setbacks except: on a lot where a commonlot line is shared with a property located within an existing singlefamily district, the building, parking and storage areas shall be setback at least 10 feet from the shared lot line.

11. Garage and Parking

a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet awayfrom any block corner or another garage entry on the same block,unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan.

b. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behindthe parking setback line, except where parking is provided belowgrade. At grade parking lots are exempt from this setback whenapplicable street walls are installed per Section 6.6.

c. These requirements are not applicable to on-street parking.

d. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designatedrequired building line.

12. AlleysThere is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alleyaccess, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lotline.

13. Corner Lots

Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full requiredbuilding line length – unless otherwise specified in this code.

14. Frontage WidthsThe minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individualside lot setbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 130 feetof continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet isrequired between each such attached structure.

149




F. West Ma in - Loc al

ELEM ENTS USE

1. Stoops and Porchesa. Each lot/unit shall include a stoop or a front porch.

b. A stoop shall be built at the required building line and be between 4and 5 feet deep and 6 feet wide (plus steps).

c. A Front Porch shall be built at the required building line and bebetween 8 and 10 feet deep, with a width not less than 50% of therequired building line. (The facade will sit behind the RBL, asdetermined by the required front porch depth.)



b. Windows and Doors on all required building line facades shallcomprise at least 30%, but no more than sixty 60%, of the facade areaper story (measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).

3. Building ProjectionsNo part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, balconies,bay windows, and steps, as specified by the code, shall encroachbeyond the required building line.


facades at intervals not greater than 75 linear feet.b. Each ground/first floor residential unit shall have direct access to the

street.

c. Each lot shall have a functioning entry door on the required buildingline façade.

5. Fences/Garden Walls A fence or garden wall, 20 to 40 inches in height, is permitted along thefront and the common lot lines of the dooryard. A privacy fence, 6 to 9feet in height, may be placed along any unbuilt rear lot lines andcommon lot lines.

6. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house residential and home office uses.

7. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house residential and home office uses.

b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where theroof is configured as an attic story.

8. Accessory Unita. One English basement unit or one accessory unit is permitted per

lot. Conversion of primary structure single-family units for multifamily use is prohibited.

b. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) uses arepermitted in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.



b. Home Office: For the purposes of the Form Districts, a home officeshall be considered to be a home occupation. 5.4.9.


150




G. West Main – R-4

HEIGHT SITING




2. Ground Story Heighta. The finished floor elevation shall be no less than 3 feet and no more





b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height(floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet.

4. Fence Heighta. A front yard fence is allowed to a maximum height of 40 inches.

b. A privacy fence not more than 8 feet in height is allowed along anycommon lot line that is behind the RBL/building façade and is not

otherwise occupied by a building.

5. Street Facadea. On each lot the building façade shall be built parallel to the required

building line for at least 60% of the required building line (RBL)length.

b. The front porch shall be built to the RBL.

c. Within 20 feet of a block corner, the building façade shall be 8 to 10

feet behind the RBL.6. Buildable Area

a. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by thesebuilding envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 25% of the total buildablearea shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open areamay be located anywhere behind the parking setback, at grade.

c. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings, steps,or balconies shall occupy the remaining lot area.

7. Side Lot SetbacksThe minimum side lot setback is 15 feet total, with a minimum of 5 feetper side, or as otherwise designated on the regulating plan.

8. Garage and Parkinga. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away

from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block,

unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan.b. Private garage entries shall not be located on the RBL/facade.

c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind theparking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade.


e. The parking setback line shall be 30 feet from the designatedrequired building line.

9. AlleysThere is a 2 foot required setback from alleys. On lots having no alleyaccess, there shall be a minimum setback of 14 feet from the rear lotline.

10. Corner LotsCorner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full requiredbuilding line length – unless otherwise specified in this code.

151




H. West Main – R-4

ELEMENTS USE



b. Windows and Doors on ground story facades shall comprise at least20%, but not more than 70%, of the facade area (measured as apercentage of the facade between floor levels).

2. Building Projectionsa. Each lot shall include a front porch at the RBL, between 8 and 10 feet

deep with a width not less than 1/3 of the façade width.

b. No part of any building, except the front porch roof (overhangingeaves) and steps may encroach beyond the required building line.

3. Doors/Entries At least one functioning entry door shall be provided along ground storyfaçade of each building.

4. Street Wallsa. There is no street wall requirement.

b. A privacy fence may be constructed along a common lot line behindthe RBL.

5. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house residential or home office uses.

6. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house residential or home office uses.

b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.



b. Conversion of primary structure single-family units for multiple-familyuse is prohibited.


8. Accessory Usesa. Parking and accessory unit (maximum 650 square feet) are permitted

in the buildable area at the rear of the lot.

(Ordinance No. 16,222, § 1, 12-11-07; Ordinance No. 16,302, § 1, 07-08-08; Ordinance No. 16,396, § 1, 02-24-09; Ordinance No. 16,521, § 1,01-12-10)

152




A. Warehouse District – General

HEIG HT SITIN G




2. Parking Structure HeightWhere a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (builtafter 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildingseave or parapet height.

3. Ground Story Height: Commerce/Industry Usesa. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater

than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to amaximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk.

b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height(floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for adepth of at least 25 feet.

c. The maimum story height for the ground story is 25 feet.


than 7 feet above the exterior sidewalk elevation at the required

building line.b. The first story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of atleast 9 feet and a maximum floor to floor story height of 22 feet.



b. At least 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height(floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet.




b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacent

public sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the groundelevation once construction is complete.


line for at least 80% of the required building line (RBL) length.

b. The building façade shall be built to the required building line within30 feet of a block corner.

c. These portions of the building façade (the required minimum build

to) may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except asotherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, andbalconies.

9. Buildable Areaa. Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot specified by these

building envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 5% of the total buildablearea shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open areamay be located anywhere behind the parking setback, either atgrade or at the second or third story.


10. Side Lot SetbacksThere are no required side lot setbacks.

11. Garage and Parking

a. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet awayfrom any block corner or another garage entry on the same block,unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan.

b. Garage Entries shall have a clear height of no greater than 16 feetnor a clear width exceeding 24 feet.

c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behindthe parking setback line, except where parking is provided belowgrade.



12. AlleysThere is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alleyaccess, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lotline.

13. Corner Lots

Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full requiredbuilding line length – unless otherwise specified in this code.

14. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatmenta. A street wall shall be required along any required building line

frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The streetwall shall be located no more 8 inches behind the required buildingline.

b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a commonlot line not otherwise occupied by a building.

153




B. Warehouse District – General

ELEM ENTS USE



b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise atleast 20%, but not more than 90%, of the facade area (measured as apercentage of the facade between floor levels).

c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise atleast 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story(measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).


lot line.

b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings,balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by thecode, shall encroach beyond the required building line.








b. Each ground story residential unit shall have direct access to thestreet-space.

4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate nowider than 6 feet shall be permitted within any required street wall.

5. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses.See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique toeach use.

6. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential

uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or lessthan the area of the ground story use.

b. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where theroof is configured as an attic story.



b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of theCommercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categoriesexcept passenger terminals and social service institutions, asdefined in Article 5.6.

c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of theIndustrial use categories except the heavy industrial and waste-related services, as defined in Article 5.6.


154




C. Warehouse Distric t - Loc al

HEIG HT SITIN G




2. Parking Structure HeightWhere a parking structure is within 40 feet of any principal building (builtafter 2006) that portion of the structure shall not exceed the buildingeave or parapet height.

3. Ground Story Height: Commerce/Industry Usesa. The ground story finished floor elevation shall be equal to, or greater

than the exterior sidewalk elevation in front of the building, to amaximum finished floor elevation of 18 inches above the sidewalk.

b. The ground story shall have at least 12 feet of clear interior height(floor to ceiling) contiguous to the required building line frontage for adepth of at least 25 feet.







b. At least eighty 80% of each upper story shall have an interior clear height (floor to ceiling) of at least 9 feet.




b. The height of the street wall shall be measured from the adjacentpublic sidewalk or, when not adjacent to a sidewalk, from the groundelevation once construction is complete.

8. OtherWhere a warehouse local site is located within 40 feet of an existingsingle-family residential zoning district, the maximum eave or parapetheight for that portion of the warehouse local site shall be 32 feet. Thisrequirement shall supersede the minimum story height requirement.


line for at least 75% of the required building line (RBL) length.

b. The building façade shall be built to the required building line within30 feet of a block corner. (The ground floor façade, within 7 feet of the block corner may be chamfered to form a corner entry.)

c. These portions of the building façade (the required minimum build to)may include jogs of not more than 18 inches in depth except asotherwise provided to allow bay windows, shopfronts, and balconies.


envelope standards.

b. A contiguous open area equal to at least 15% of the total buildablearea shall be preserved on every lot. Such contiguous open area maybe located anywhere behind the parking setback, either at grade or atthe second story.


11. Side Lot SetbacksThere are no required side lot setbacks.

12. Garage and Parkinga. Garage entries or driveways shall be located at least 75 feet away

from any block corner or another garage entry on the same block,unless otherwise designated on the regulating plan.

b. Garage entries shall have a clear height of no greater than 16 feetnor a clear width exceeding 24 feet.

c. Vehicle parking areas on private property shall be located behind theparking setback line, except where parking is provided below grade. At grade parking lots are exempt from this setback when applicablestreet walls are installed per Section 6.6.



13. Alleysa. There is no required setback from alleys. On lots having no alley

access, there shall be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the rear lotline.

14. Corner Lotsa. Corner lots shall satisfy the code requirements for the full required

building line length – unless otherwise specified in this code.15. Frontage Widths

The minimum lot width is 18 feet. Although there are no individual sidelot setbacks, no building/set of townhouses may exceed 130 feet of continuous attached building frontage. A gap of 10 feet to 20 feet isrequired between each such attached structure.

16. Unbuilt Required Building Line and Common Lot Line Treatmenta. A street wall shall be required along any required building line

frontage that is not otherwise occupied by a building. The street wallshall be located no more than 8 inches behind the required buildingline.

b. Privacy fences may be constructed along that portion of a commonlot line not otherwise occupied by a building.

155



6.0 Form Districts 6.5 Warehouse District


D. Warehouse District - Loc al

ELEM ENTS USE



b. Windows and Doors on the ground story facades shall comprise atleast twenty 20%, but not more than 80%, of the facade area(measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).

c. Windows and Doors on the upper story facades shall comprise atleast 20%, but no more than 60%, of the facade area per story(measured as a percentage of the facade between floor levels).


lot line.

b. No part of any building, except overhanging eaves, awnings,balconies, bay windows, stoops, and shopfronts as specified by theCode, shall encroach beyond the required building line.








b. Each ground story unit shall have direct access to the street.

4. Street Walls A vehicle entry gate no wider than 18 feet or a pedestrian entry gate nowider than 6 feet shall be permitted wi thin any required street wall.

5. Ground StoryThe ground story shall house commerce, industrial or residential uses.See Height specifications above for specific requirements unique toeach use.

6. Upper Storiesa. The upper stories shall house commerce, industrial or residential

uses. No restaurant or retail sales uses shall be allowed in upper stories unless they are second story extensions equal to or less thanthe area of the ground story use.

b. No commerce or industrial use is permitted above a residential use.

c. Additional habitable space is permitted within the roof where the roof is configured as an attic story.



b. Commerce uses shall be considered to encompass all of theCommercial use categories, and all of the Civic use categories exceptpassenger terminals and social service institutions, as defined in Article 5.6.

c. Industrial uses shall be considered to encompass all of the Industrialuse categories except waste-related services and animal processing,as defined in Article 5.6.


(Ordinance No. 16,222, § 1, 12-11-07; Ordinance No. 16,521, § 1, 01-12-10)

156




From the


Benicia, California

Adopted 2006

157



Draft: 12.22

4-4 Downtown Mixed Use Master POpticos Design,


Town Core (TC):

The primar y intent of this zone is to enhance the vibrant, pedestrian- oriented char-acter of First Street. The physical form and uses are regulated to reflect the urban

character of the historic shopfront buildings.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone primarily refers to vertical mixed use where retail or commercial are on the ground floor andresidential or commercial are above.

Town Core-Open (TC-O):

The primar y intent of this zone is to regulate the physical form of shopfront build-ings along the side streets bet ween First Street and Second Street in order to providean appropriate transition from First Street into the residential neighborhoods. Thephysical form of a shopfront building is regulated whi le allowing f lexibility in use.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use withi n this zone is defined by the flexibilit y and compatibility in use, allowi ng retail, commercial, or residential

live/work uses in a shopfront form.

Neighborhood Center (NC):

The primar y intent of this zone is to reinforce and enhance the pedestrian- orientedcharacter of locally-serv ing retail and commercial uses along the existing com-mercial centers on East and West Second Streets. The physical form varies to ref lect the urban character of the historic shopfront buildings, the residential character of adjacent residential buildings, or the civic character of existing bui ldings, such asold churches.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use withi n this zone refers to vertical and horizontal mi xed use where retail and commercial are permitted onthe ground f loor at the street edge and residential or commercial uses are permittedabove or behind in ancillary buildi ngs. All of this is at a scale and form that is appro-

priate to its neighborhood context adjacent to residential uses and forms.

Neighborhood General (NG):

The primar y intent of this zone is to protect the integrity and qual ity of the down-town residential neighborhoods.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Appropriately-scaled ancillary build-ings are allowed that can accommodate residential, home-office, or workshop uses.

Neighborhood General-Open (NG-O):

The primar y intent of this zone is to ensure a residential physical form to relate toadjacent residential buildings along the side streets between First Street and SecondStreet in order to provide an appropriate transition from First Street into the resi-dential neighborhoods. The physical form of a residential building is regulated whileallowing f lexibility in use. This zone is applied to buildings with an ex isting resi-dential form that has been compromised by on-site or adjacent development making pure residential use inappropriate.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Commercial or residential uses areallowed in this area in a residential form both in the main buildings as well as inancillary buildings.

Zone Descriptions

158



Draft: 12.22.06



Illustrative examples of buildings in a Town Core area

Town Core (TC):

The primary intent of this zone is to enhance the vi-

brant, pedestrian- oriented character of First Street. Thephysical form and uses are regulated to reflect the urbancharacter of the historic shopfront buildings.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone primari ly refers to vertical mi xed use where retail or commercial are on the ground f loor andresidential or commercial are above.

How “primary street” is defined within this zone: The primary st reet is always First Street.

Town Core (TC) Standards

P r i m a r y S t r e e t S i

d e S t r e

e t

159



Draft: 12.22



Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Building Area

Building Placement

Build-to Line (Distance from Property Line)

Front 0'

Side Street 0'

Setback (Distance from Property Line)

Side 0'Rear

Adjacent to NG Zone 8'

Adjacent to any other Zone 5'

Building Form

Primar y Street Façade built to BTL 80% min.*

Side Street Façade built to BTL 30% min.*

Lot Width 125' max.

Lot Depth 100' max.

*Street façades must be built to BTL along first 30' from every corner.

Notes

All floors must have a primary ground-floor entrance that

faces the primary or side street.

Loading docks, overhead doors, and other serv ice entries are

prohibited on street-facing façades.

Any building over 50' wide must be broken down to read as a

series of buildings no wider than 50' each.

� �

Key

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

BTL, Property Line

B T L ,

P r o p e r t y

L i n e

G

A

D

B

H

MI

K

N J

L

E

F

Property Line Street

C

A

C

B

D

D

E

F

G

H


Use

Ground Floor Service, Retail, or

Recreation, Education &

Public Assembly*

Upper Floor(s) Residential or Serv ice*

*See Table 4.1 for specific uses.

Height

Building Min. 22' *

Building Max. 2.5 stories and 35' *

Ancilla ry Building Max. 2 stories and 25' *

Finish Ground Floor Level 6" max. above sidewalk

First Floor Ceiling Height 12' min. clear

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear.

*All heights measured to eaves or base of parapet.

Notes

Mansard roof forms are not al lowed.

Any section along the BTL not defined by a building must b

defined by a 2'6" to 4'6" high fence or stucco or masonry wa

160



Draft: 12.22.06



Property Line

Parking Area

Key

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

B T L ,

P r o p e

r t y

L i n e

O

R

S T

Q

U

W

V

Parking

Location (Distance from Property Line)

Front Setback 30'

Side Setback 0'

Side Street Setback 5'

Rear Setback 5'Required Spaces

Ground Floor

Uses <3,000 sf No off-street parking required

Uses >3,000 sf 1 space/500 sf

Upper Floors

Residential uses 1 space/unit; .5 space/studio

Other uses 1 space/1,000 sf

Notes

Parking Drive Width 15' max.

On corner lots, parking drive shal l not be located on

primary street.

Parking may be provided off-site within 1,300' or as shared

parking.

Bicycle parking must be provided and in a secure environment.

Parking drives are highly discouraged along First Street and only

permitted if there is no other option for access to parking areas.

P

Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Encroachment A rea

Key

BTL, Property Line

P V

O

Q

R

S

T

W

U

Encroachments

Location

Front 12' max.

Side Street 8' max.

Rear 4' max.

NotesCanopies, Awnings, and Balconies may encroach over the BTL

on the street sides, as shown in t he shaded areas. Balconies

may encroach into the setback on the rear, as shown in the

shaded areas.

Upper-story galleries facing the street must not be used to

meet primary ci rculation requirements.

Allowed Frontage Types (see page 4-30)

Gallery

Clearance 1' min. back from curb line

Height 9' min. clear, 2 stories max.

Awning

Depth 10' max.

Forecourt

Depth 15' min., not to exceed width

Width 20' min., 50% of lot width max.


161



Draft: 12.22



Land Use Type PermitRequired

Specific UseRegulations

Recreation, Education & Public Assembly

Commercial recreat ion facility: Indoor

< 1500 sf MUP

> 1500 sf UP

Health/fitness facility

< 1500 sf MUP

> 1500 sf UP

Library, museum PMeeting facilit y, publ ic or pr ivate MU P

Park, playground MUP

School, public or private MUP

Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.

< 1500 sf P

Theater, cinema, or performing arts P

< 5000 sf P

> 5000 sf UP

Key

P Permitted Use

MUP Minor Use Permit Required - staff review only

UP Use Permit Required

NA Not an allowed use

End Notes

1A definition of each listed use type is in the Glossary.

2Allowed only on upper floors or behind ground floor use.

Table 4.1: Town Core (TC) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements

Land Use Type1 PermitRequired

Specific URegulatio

Residential

Home occupation

< 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees P²

> 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees P³

> 300 sf and 3 or more employees NA

Mixed use project residential component P²

D welli ng: Mult i-Fami ly-Rowhouse P ²

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex P²Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex P²

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex P²

Ancillary Building P

Resident ial Care, 7 or more cl ient s P ²

Resident ial Care, 6 or fewer cl ient s P ²

Retail

Artisan Shop P

Bar, tavern, night club, except with any

of the following features

P

Operating between 9 pm and 7 am UP

General retail, except with any of the

following features:

P

Alcoholic beverage sales UP

Floor area over 8000 sf MUP

On-site production of items sold MUP

Operating between 9 pm and 7 am MUP

Neighborhood market < 10,000 sf P

Restaurant, café, coffee shop P


162



Draft: 12.22.06





Services: Business, Financial, Professional

ATM or bank P

Business support service P²

Medical services: Doctor Office P²

Medical ser vices: Extended Care P²

Office: Business, service P²

Office: Professional, administrative P²

Services: GeneralFinancial Services P²

Bed & breakfast

4 guest rooms or less P²

Greater than 4 guest rooms P²

Day care center: Child or adult P²

Day care center: Large family P²

Day care center: Small family P²

Lodging MUP

Personal services PTransportation, Communications, Infrastructure

Parking facility, public or commercial UP

Wireless telecommunications facility MUP

163



Draft: 12.22.06



Town Core-Open (TC-O) Standards

Illustrative examples of buil dings in a Town Core-Open Area

S t r e e t

Town Core-Open (TC-O):

The primary intent of this zone is to regulate the physicalform of shopfront buildings a long the side streets betweenFirst Street and Second Street in order to provide an ap-propriate transition from First Street into the residentialneighborhoods. The physical form of a shopfront building is regulated while allowing flexibility in use.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone is defined by the flexibilit y and compat-ibility in use, allowing retai l, commercial, or residentiallive/work uses in a shopfront form.

P a r k i n g D r

i v e

164



Draft: 12.22



Use

Ground Floor Service, Retail, or

Recreation, Education &

Public Assembly*



Height

Building Min. 16' *

Building Max. 2 stories and 25' *


Finish Ground Floor Level 12" max. above sidewalk


Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear


Notes


Any section along the BTL not defined by a building must b

defined by a 2'6" to 4'6" high fence or stucco or masonry wa

Building Placement

Build-to Line (Distance from Property Line)

Front 0'


Side 3'

RearAdjacent to NG Zone 8'


Building Form

Street Façade built to BTL 80% min.*

Lot Width 75' max.

Lot Depth 150' max.

Notes

All f loors must have a primary g round-floor entrance which

faces the street.


prohibited on street façades.

Any building over 50' wide must be broken down to read as a

series of buildings no wider than 50' each.

A

� �

C

C

B

D

E

F

J

D

Property Line Street

Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Building Area

Key

Sidewalk

Street

BTL, Property Line

E F

A

C

LH

K G

I

B


165



Draft: 12.22.06



Parking


Front Setback 20'

Side Setback 0'

Rear Setback 5'

Required SpacesGround Floor

Uses < 3,000 sf No off-street parking required

Uses > 3,000 sf 1 space/500 sf

Upper Floor(s)



Notes



parking .


50% of the on-street parking spaces adjacent to lot can count

toward parking requi rements.

Encroachments

Location

Front 12' max.

Rear 4' max.

Notes

Canopies, Awnings, and Balconies may encroach over the BTLon the street sides, as shown in t he shaded areas. Balconies

may encroach into the setback on the rear, as shown in the

shaded areas.

Upper story galleries facing the street must not be used to mee

primary circulation requirements.


Gallery

Clearance 1' min. back from curb line

Height 9' min. clear, 2 stories max.

Awning

Depth 10' max.

Forecourt


Width 20' min., 50% of lot width max.

QM

N

O

P

R

Property Line

Parking Area

Key

Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Encroachment A rea

Key

Sidewalk

Street

Sidewalk

Street

BTL, Property Line

M

O

P Q

R

N


166



Draft: 12.22




Table 4.2: Town Core-Open (TC-O) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements





< 1500 sf MUP

Library, museum P

Meeting facilit y, publ ic or pr ivate MU P

Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.

< 1500 sf P

ResidentialHome occupation

< 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees P

> 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees P

Live/work unit P

Mixed use project residential component P

D wel ling: Mu lti-Fa mily-Rowhouse P

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex P

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex P

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex PAncillary Building P

Resident ial Care, 7 or more cl ient s UP

Resident ial Care, 6 or fe wer cl ients MUP

Key

P Permitted Use



NA Use Not Allowed

End Notes

¹ A definition of each listed use type is in the Glossary.

² Al lowed only on upper f loors or behind ground floor use.

³ Allowed only in Ancillary buildings


Specific URegulatio

Retail

Artisan Shop P

Bar, tavern, night club, except with

any of the following

UP

Operating between 9 pm and 7 am NA


following features:

P

Alcoholic beverage sales UPFloor area over 8000 sf NA


Operating between 9 pm and 7 am NA

Neighborhood market <10,000 sf P

Restaurant, café, coffee shop MUP


ATM or Bank MUP

Business support service P

Medical services: Clinic, urgent care MUPMedical services: Doctor office P

Medical ser vices: Extended Care MUP

Office: Business, service P

Office: Professional, administrative P

Services: General

Financial Services P

Bed & Breakfast

4 guest rooms or less P

Greater than 4 guest rooms P

Lodging MUP

Personal services P

Transportation, Communications, Infrastructure


167



Draft: 12.22.06



Neighborhood Center (NC) Standards

Illustrative examples of buildingsin a Neighborhood Center area

P r i m a r y S t r e e t

S i d e

S t r e

e t

Neighborhood Center (NC):

The primar y intent of this zoneis to reinforce and enhance the pe-destrian-oriented character of locally-serving retail and commercial uses along the existing commercial centers on East and

West Second Streets. The physical form var-ies to reflect the urban character of the historicshopfront buildings, t he residential character of adjacent residential buildings, or the civic character of existing bui ldings, such as old churches.

How mixed use is defined within this zone: Mixed use within this zone refers to vertical and horizontal mixed use where retail and commercial are permitted on the groundfloor at t he street edge and residential or commercial usesare permitted above or behind in ancillary buildings. All of this is at a scale and form that is appropriate to its neighbor-hood context adjacent to residential uses and forms.

How “primary street” is defined within this zone:The primar y street is always E. or W. Second Street.

168



Draft: 12.22



� �

Use

Ground Floor Residential, Service, Retail,

or Recreation, Education &

Public Assembly*



Height

Build ing Min. 16' *

Building Max. 2.5 stories and 30' *


Finish Ground Floor Level

Residential 18" min.

Commercial 0" min.


Upper Floor(s) Ceiling Height 8' min. clear


Notes


Building Placement


Front 0' min., 12' max.

Side Street 0' min., 8' max.

Side 4'

Rear

Adjacent to NG or Resid. ZoneUnder two stories 8'

2 stories or more 12'


Building Form

Lot Width 75' max.

Lot Depth 150' max.

Building Width 50' max.

Building Depth 75' max.

Distance between buildings

on same lot 12' min.

Notes

All f loors must have a primary g round-floor entrance which

faces the primary or side street.


prohibited on street-facing façades.

A

D

D

B

C

E

F

G

H

L

Property Line

Sidewalk

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

E F

A

D

B N J

N J

MI

K

C


Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Building Area

Key

D

G

H

169



Draft: 12.22.06



Encroachments

Location

Front 12' max.

Side Street 8' max.

Rear 4' max.

Notes

Porches, Commercial Storefronts, Balconies, and Bay Win-dows may encroach over the BTL on the street sides, as shown

in the shaded areas. Balconies may encroach into the setback

on the rear, as shown in the shaded areas.


Awning

Depth 10' max.

Stoop

Depth 4' min., 6' max.

Forecourt


Width 20' min., 50% of lot width max

Porch

Depth 8' min.

Height 2 stories max.

Parking


Front Setback 20'

Side Setback 0'

Side Street Setback 5'

Rear Setback 5'

Required SpacesGround Floor

Residential Use 1 space/unit, .5 spaces/studio

Uses < 3,000 sf No off-street parking required

Uses > 3,000 sf 1 space/500 sf

Upper Floor(s)



Notes


On corner lots, parking drive shall not be located on

primary street.


parking .


50% of the on-street parking spaces adjacent to lot can count

toward parking requi rements.

UO

P

Q

S

T

V

W

R

Property Line

Parking Area

Key

Property Line

Build-to Line (BTL)

Setback Line

Encroachment A rea

Key

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

Sidewalk

Primary Street

S i d e

S t r e e t

O

R

S T

Q

U

W

V P


170



Draft: 12.22




Table 4.3: Neighborhood Center (NC) Zone Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements





< 1500 sf MUP

Library, museum MUP

Meeting facilit y, public or private P

Park, playground P

School, public or private MUP

Studio: art, dance, martial arts, music, etc.< 1500 sf P

> 1500 sf MUP

Theater, cinema, or performing ar ts

< 5000 sf MUP

Key

P Permitted Use



End Notes

1A definition of each listed use type is in the Glossary.

2Allowed only on second floors or behind ground f loor use.


Specific URegulatio

Residential

Dwelling: Single family P

Home occupation

< 300 sf and 2 or fewer employees P

> 300 sf and 3 or fewer employees P

> 300 sf and 3 or more employees P

Live/work unit P

Mixed use project residential component PD welli ng: Mult i-Fami ly-Rowhouse M UP

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Duplex P

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Triplex P

Dwelling: Multi-Family-Fourplex P

Ancillary Building P

Resident ial Care, 7 or more cl ient s UP

Resident ial Care, 6 or fewer cl ient s M UP

Retail

Artisan Shop PBar, tavern, night club, except with any

of the following features

UP

Operating between 9 pm and 7 am UP


following features:

P

Alcoholic beverage sales UP


Operating between 9pm and 7am UP

Neighborhood market < 10,000 sf P

Restaurant, café, coffee shop P

171



Draft: 12.22.06






ATM or Bank P

Business support service P

Medical services: Clinic, urgent care MUP

Medical services: Doctor office P

Medical ser vices: Extended Care MUP

Office: Business, service P

Office: Professional, administrative PServices: General

Financial Services P

Bed & Breakfast

4 guest rooms or less P

Greater than 4 guest rooms MUP

Day care center: Child or adult MUP

Day care center: Large family UP

Day care center: Small family P

Personal services PTransportation, Communications, Infrastructure


172




From the

Denver Form-Based Zoning Code

Denver, Colorado

Adopted 2010

173



ARTICLE 5. URBAN (U-) NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT

174



| 5.1-1

Article 5. Urban Neighborhood Context

Division 5.1 Neighborhood Context Description

DENVER ZONING CODEJune 25, 2010

DIVISION 5.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT DESCRIPTION

SECTION 5.1.1 GENERAL CHARACTERThe Urban Neighborhood Context is primarily characterized by single-unit and two-unit residential uses. Small-

scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas. Single-unit

residential structures are typically Urban House forms. Multi-unit building forms are typically Row House forms

embedded with other residential building forms. Commercial buildings are typically Shop front and General

forms that may contain a mixture of uses within the same building. Single- and two-unit residential uses are

primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. Multi-unit residential uses are located along localstreets, residential and mixed use arterials, and main streets. Commercial uses are primarily located along mixed-

use arterial or main streets but may be located at or between intersections of local streets.

SECTION 5.1.2 STREET, BLOCK AND ACCESS PATTERNSThe Urban Neighborhood Context consists of a regular pattern of block shapes surrounded by an orthogonal

street grid. Orthogonal streets provide a regular pattern of pedestrian and vehicular connections through this

context and there is a consistent presence of alleys. Block sizes and shapes are consistent and primarily include

detached sidewalks (though attached sidewalks are also found), tree lawns where provided for by detached

sidewalks, street and surface parking, and landscaping in the front setback.

SECTION 5.1.3 BUILDING PLACEMENT AND LOCATIONResidential buildings typically have consistent, moderate front setbacks, shallow side setbacks and consistent

orientation. Commercial buildings typically have consistent orientation and shallow front setbacks with park-ing at the rear and/or side of the building.

SECTION 5.1.4 BUILDING HEIGHTThe Urban Neighborhood Context is characterized by low scale buildings except for some mid- rise commer-

cial and mixed use structures, particularly at nodes or along arterial streets.

SECTION 5.1.5 MOBILITYThere is a balance of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle reliance with greater access to the multi-modal transpor-

tation system.

175



5.3-4 |


Division 5.3 Design Standards


5.3.3.4 District Specic Standards

A. Urban House

H

K

PRIMARY STREET

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

S I D E S T R E E T

P R I M A R Y S T R E E T

S I D E S

T R E E

T

E E

G

H

I

G

F F F

I IJ J

HH

E


S I D E S

T R E E

T R e a r 3 5 %

o f Z o n e

L o t D e p t h

F r o n t

6 5 % o f

Z o n e

L o t D e p t h

P r i m a r y S t r e e t S e t b a c k

C

D1

1

A B

Not to Scale. Illustrative Only.

176



| 5.3-5




URBAN HOUSEUSUA USUB USUC

USUA1 USUB1 USUC1 USUE USUH UTUB U

H E I G H T USUA2 USUB2 USUC2 USUE1 USUH1 UTUB2 UTUC U

Stories, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 3/1 2.5/1 2.5/1

A/B Feet, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’

Feet, ront 65% o zone lot depth, allowable height

increase1’ or every 5’ increase in lot width over 50’ up to a maximum height o 35’

Feet, rear 35% o zone lot depth, allowable height

increase1’ or every 3’ increase in side setback up to a maximum height o 19’

C/D

Bulk Plane Vertical Height at Side Interior and Side

Street zone lot line in ront 65% / rear 35% o Zone Lot

Depth

17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’

Bulk Plane Slope rom Side Interior and Side Street

zone lot line45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45°

USUA,

A1, A2

UTUB, B2

USU

B, B1, B2

UTUC

USU

C, C1, C2

USU

E, E1

USU

H, H1

UTU

B, B2 UTUC

U

US I T I N G

ZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min) 3,000 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2 7,000 t2 10,000 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2 3

E Zone Lot Width (min) 25’ 35’ 50’ 50’ 75’ 35’ 50’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/

max)1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/2 1/2

All USU, TU, RH Districts

SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT

WIDTH30’ or Less 31’ to 40’ 41’ to 74’ 75’ or Gr

F Primary Street, block sensitive setback required yes yes yes yes

FPrimary Street, where block sensitive setback

does not apply (min)20’ 20’ 20’ 20

G Side Street (min) 3’ 5’ 5’ 7.5

H Side Interior (min) 3’3’ min one side/10’

min combined5’ 10

I Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12’/20’ 12’/20’ 12’/20’ 12’/2Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all acces-

sory structures (max)50% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5

PARKING BY ZONE LOT WIDTH

Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street

Setback (max)

2 Spaces

and 320 t2

2 Spaces

and 320 t2 33% 33%

Vehicle Access From alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present. See Sec. 5.3.7.6

ACCESSORY STRUCTURES

J Detached Accessory Structures Allowed see Sec. 5.3.4

USUA USUB USUC

USUA1 USUB1 USUC1 USUE USUH UTUB U

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S USUA2 USUB2 USUC2 USUE1 USUH1 UTUB2 UTUC U

BUILDING CONFIGURATION

Attached Garage Allowed

(1) Shall not project orward o any part o a Primary Street acing acade o a prima

ture (2) May ollow the Detached Garage building orm Side Street, Side Interior a

setbacks

Primary Street Facing Attached Garage Door

Width in frst 50% o lot depth (max)

35% o the entire width o the Primary Street acing acade o the primary structur

whichever is greater

GROUND STORY ACTIVATION

K Pedestrian Access, Primary Street Entry Feature

See Sections 5.3.5 5.3.7 or Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions

Amendment: 5

177



5.3-6 |




B. Duplex

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S

T R E E

T


S I D E

S T R E E T

S I D E

S T R E E T

E

G H H

I

G

F F F

EE

I

IJ J J

H H

K

ALLEY

A L L E Y


S I D E S

T R E E

T R e a r 3

5 % o f

Z o n e

L o t D e p t h

F r o n t

6 5 % o f

Z o n e

L o t D e p t h


C

D1

1

A B

A L L E Y


178



| 5.3-7




DUPLEXUTUB URH2.

H E I G H T USUA2* USUB2* USUC2* UTUB2 UTUC URH3A

Stories, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1 2.5/1

A/B Feet, ront 65% / rear 35% o lot depth (max) 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’ 30’/17’

Feet, ront 65% o zone lot depth, allowable height

increase1’ or every 5’ increase in lot width over 50’ up to a maximum height o 35’

Feet, rear 35% o zone lot depth, allowable heightincrease 1’ or every 3’ increase in side setback up to a maximum height o 19’

C/D

Bulk Plane Vertical Height at Side interior and Side

street zone lot line in ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot

depth

17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’

Bulk Plane Slope rom Side interior and Side Street

zone lot line45° 45° 45° 45° 45° 45°

USUA2* USUB2* USUC2*

UTUB

UTUB2 UTUC

URH2.

URH3AS I T I N GZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min) 3,000 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2 4,500 t

E Zone Lot Width (min) 25’ 35’ 50’ 35’ 50’ 35’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/

max) 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 2/2


SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT

WIDTH30’ or Less 31’ to 40’ 41’ to 74’ 75’ or Greater


FPrimary Street, where block sensitive setback

does not apply (min)20’ 20’ 20’ 20’

G Side Street (min) 3’ 5’ 5’ 5’

H Side Interior (min) 3’3’ min one side/10’

min combined5’ 10’

I Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12’/20’ 12’/20’ 12’/20’ 12’/20’

Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all acces-

sory structures (max) 50% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5%


Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street

Setback (max)50% 50% 33% 50%

Vehicle Access From alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present. See Section 5.3.7


J Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4

UTUB URH2.

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES USUA2* USUB2* USUC2* UTUB2 UTUC URH3A



(1) Shall not project orward o any part o a Primary Street acing acade o

a primary structure (2) May ollow the Detached Garage building orm standards Side Street, Side Interior and Rear setbacks



35% o the entire width o the Primary Street acing acade o the dwelling

primary structure or 16’, whichever is greater


K Pedestrian Access, Primary Street Entry Feature


*Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one o the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the unc

tional street classications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

179



5.3-8 |




C. Tandem House

M NP R I M A R Y S T R E E T

S I D E S

T R E E

TO

O

S I D E S T R E E T

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

F

E

PRIMARY STREET

EE

FF

G GHHH H

G GII

I

I

JJJ

K K K

L

L

L


S I D E S

T R E E

T R e a r 3 5

% o f Z o n e

L o t D e p t h

F r o n t

6 5 % o f

Z o n e

L o t D

e p t h


C

D1

1

A B


180



| 5.3-9




TANDEM HOUSEUTUB U

UH E I G H T USUA2* USUB2* USUC2* UTUB2 UTUC

Stories (max) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

A/B Feet, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 30’/24’ 30’/24’ 30’/24’ 30’/24’ 30’/24’

Feet, ront 65% o lot depth, allowable height increase 1’ or every 5’ increase in lot width over 50’ up to a maximum heigh

C/DBulk Plane Vertical Height at Side interior and Side street zone lot line

in ront 65% o lot / rear 35% o zone lot depth17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’ 17’/10’

Bulk Plane Slope rom Side interior and Side Street zone lot line 45° 45° 45° 45° 45°


UTUB

UTUB2 UTUC

U

US I T I N G

ZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min) 3,000 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2 4,500 t2 5,500 t2

E Zone Lot Width (min) 25’ 35’ 50’ 35’ 50’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max) 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1


SETBACKS AND BUILDING COVERAGE BY ZONE LOT WIDTH 30’ or Less 31’ to 40’ 41’ to 74’ 75’ or Gr


F Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) 20’ 20’ 20’ 20

G Side Street (min) 3’ 5’ 5’ 5’

H Side Interior, or Primary Structure #1 (min one side/min combined) 3’/6’ 5’/10’ 5’/10’ 5’/1

I Side Interior, or Primary Structure #2 (min one side/min combined)** 3’/6’ 5’/10’ 5’/10’ 5’/1

J Rear, or Primary Structure #1, as a % o lot depth (min) 50% 50% 50% 50%

K Rear, or Primary Structure #2 (min) 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’

L Required Separation Between Primary Structures (min) 6’ 6’ 6’ 6’

Building Coverage per Zone Lot, including all accessory structures

(max)50% 37.5% 37.5% 37.5


Parking and Drive Lot Coverage in Primary Street Setback (max) 50% 50% 50% 50%

Vehicle AccessFrom alley; or Street access allowed when no alley present

See Section 5.3.7.6ACCESSORY STRUCTURES

Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4


UTUB

UTUB2 UTUC

U

UD E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES


M Overall Structure Width (max) 36’ 36’ 36’ 36’ 36’

N Overall Structure Length (max) 42’ 42’ 42’ 42’ 42’


(1) Shall not project orward o any part o a Primary Street acing a

a primary structure (2) May ollow the Detached Garage building o

Street, Side Interior and Rear setbacks



35% o the entire width o the Primary Street acing acade o the prim

ture or 16’, whichever is greaterGROUND STORY ACTIVATION

O Pedestrian Access, Primary StreetPrimary Structure #1: Entry Feature

Primary Structure #2: No Requirement


*Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one o the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street, according to the unctional stree

tions adopted by the Public Works Department.

**Must be ofset to be visible rom the street i to the rear o Primary Structure #1 (side setbacks may be reversed rom Primary Structure #1)

Amendment: 5

181



5.3-10 |




D. Garden Court

AB B A


S I D E S

T R E E

T

A L L E Y

H

J

I

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S T R E E T

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

D

C

FG

E

F

C

F

D

GG

C

EE E


182



| 5.3-11




GARDEN COURT

H E I G H T URH2.5 URH3A

A Stories, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 2.5/1 2.5/1

A Feet, ront 65% / rear 35% o lot (max) 30’/19’ 30’/19’

Feet, ront 65% o lot depth, allowable height increase 1’ or every 5’ increase in lot width over 50’ up toa maximum height o 35’

B Side Wall Plate Height (max) 25’ 25’

S I T I N G URH2.5 URH3A

ZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min) 6,000 t2 6,000 t2

Zone Lot Width (min) 50’ 50’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max) 3/10 3/10

SETBACKS

C Primary Street, block sensitive setback required yes yes

C Primary Street, where block sensitive setback does not apply (min) 20’ 20’

D Side Street (min) 5’ 5’E Side Interior (min) 5’ 5’

F Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12’/20’ 12’/20’

PARKING

Surace Parking between building and Primary Street/Side Street Not Allowed/Allowed

Vehicle AccessFrom alley; or From street when no alley present

See Sec. 5.3.7.6


G Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S URH2.5 URH3A


Upper Story Stepback, or Flat Roo, Above 25’: Primary Street and

Side, Interior (min)10’ 10’

H Street-Facing Courtyard Width (min) 15’ 15’

I Street-Facing Courtyard Depth (min) 30’ 30’

Garden Court Design Standards See Sec. 5.3.5


J Pedestrian Access

Each dwelling unit shall have a ground story Entrance. At

least two Entrances acing Primary Street and all others acing

interior courtyardSee Sections 5.3.5 5.3.7 or Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard Exceptions

Amendment: 5

183



5.3-12 |




E. Row House (1 of 2)

P R I M A R Y S T R E E T S I D E S

T R E E

T

A L L E Y

I

I

I

A

B B A

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S T R E E T

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

D

C

FG

E

F

C

F

D

GG

C

EE E

H


184



| 5.3-13




ROW HOUSE 1 OF 2

UTUB2* URH2.5 URH3AH E I G H TA Stories, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 2.5/2.5 2.5/1 2.5/1

A Feet, ront 65% / rear 35% o zone lot depth (max) 35’/35’ 35’/19’ 35’/19’

B

Side Wall Height (max) 25’ 25’ 25’

UTUB2* URH2.5 URH3AS I T I N GZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min/max) 6,000 t2 / 9,375 t2 6,000 t2 / na 6,000 t2 / na

Zone Lot Width (min) 50’ 50’ 50’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min/max) 3/na 3/10 3/10

SETBACKS

C Primary Street, block sensitive setback required yes yes yes

CPrimary Street where block sensitive setback does not apply

(min)20’ 20’ 20’

D Side Street (min) 5’ 5’ 5’

E Side Interior (min) 5’ 5’ 5’

F Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12’/20’ 12’/20’ 12’/20’

PARKING

Surace Parking between building and

Primary Street/Side StreetNot Allowed/Allowed

Vehicle AccessFrom alley; or From street when no alley present

See Sec. 5.3.7.6


G Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4

UTUB2* URH2.5 URH3AD E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES


HUpper Story Stepback, or Flat Roo, Above 25’: Primary

Street and Side Interior (min)10’ 10’ 10’

Street acing attached garage door width per Primary Struc-

ture20’ 20’ 20’


I Pedestrian Access Each unit shall have a street-acing Entrance


*Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one o the intersecting streets is a collector or ar terial street, according to

the unctional street classications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

185



5.3-14 |




F. Row House (2 of 2)

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S T R E E T

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

E

D

GH

F

G

D

G

E

HH

D

FF FC

C

B B B


S I D E S

T R E E

T

A L L E Y

M

M

M

KL

J

I

PROPERTY

LINE

PROTECTED

DISTRICT

A


186



| 5.3-15




ROW HOUSE 2 OF 2UMX2

UMX2x UMX3 URX5

UMS2

UMS2x UMS3 UMSH E I G H TA Stories (max) 2 3 5 2 3 5

A Feet (min/max) na/32’ na/40’ na/70’ na/32’ na/40’ 24’/7

UMX2

UMX2x UMX3 URX5

UMS2

UMS2x UMS3 UMSS I T I N GZONE LOT

Use Restrictions na na

Second Story

and Above: Resi-

dential Only

Ground Story within required buil

portion must have at least one prim

use, other than parking o vehic

REQUIRED BUILD-TO

B Primary Street (min % within min/max) 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’75% 0’/5’

I Residential Only: 75% 0’/10

C Side Street (min % within min/max) na na na25% 0’/5’

I Residential Only: 25% 0’/10

SETBACKS

D Primary Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’E Side Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

F Side Interior (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District (min)U-MX-2x: 5’

10’10’ 10’

U-MS-2x: 5’

10’10’ 10’

G Rear, (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min) 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10

PARKING


Primary Street/Side StreetNot Allowed/Allowed Not Allowed/Not Allowed

Vehicle Access From alley; or From street when no alley present; See Sec. 5.3.7.6


H Detached Accessory Structures Allowed See Sec. 5.3.4

UMX2

UMX2x UMX3 URX5

UMS2

UMS2x UMS3 UMSD E S I G N E L E M E N T S CTURES


IUpper Story Setback Above 27’ adjacent to Protected

District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min)na 15’/25’ 20’/25’ na 15’/25’ 20’/2

JUpper Story Setback Above 51’, adjacent to Protected

District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min)na na 35’/40’ na na 35’/4

Street acing garage door width per Primary Structure

(max)20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’


K Transparency, Primary Street (min) 30% 30% 30%60%;

I Residential Only: 40%

L Transparency, Side Street (min) na na na 25% 25% 25%

M Pedestrian Access Each unit shall have a street-acing Entrance


Amendment: 5

187



5.3-16 |




G. Courtyard Apartment

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S T R E E T

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

CCC

D DE E E E

F F F

B B B


T R E E

T

A L L E Y

A

J

G

H

M

K L

I

PROPERTY

LINE

PROTECTED

DISTRICT


188



| 5.3-17




COURTYARD APARTMENTUMX2

H E I G H T UMX2x UMX3 URX5

A Stories (max) 2 3 5

A Feet (max) 35’ 45’ 70’

UMX2

S I T I N G UMX2x UMX3 URX5

REQUIRED BUILD-TO

B Primary Street (min % within min/max)* 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’

SETBACKS

C Primary Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

D Side Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

E Side Interior (min) 0’ 0’ 0’


10’10’ 10’

F Rear (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley (min)0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’

PARKING


Primary Street/Side Street

Not Allowed/Allowed

Vehicle AccessShall be determined as part o Site Devel-

opment Plan Review

UMX2

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S UMX2x UMX3 URX5


G Street-Facing Courtyard Width (min) 15’ 15’ 15’

H Street-Facing Courtyard Depth (min) 30’ 30’ 30’

Courtyard Design Standards See Sec. 5.3.5

I Upper Story Setback Above 27’, adjacent to Protected District:Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min)

na 15’/25’ 20’/25’

JUpper Story Setback Above 51’, adjacent to Protected District:

Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side Interior (min)na na 35’/40’

Street acing garage door width per Primary Structure (max) 20’ 20’ 20’


K Transparency, Primary Street (min) 30% 30% 30%

L Transparency, Side Street (min) 25% 25% 25%

M Pedestrian Access, Primary Street Entrance Entrance Entrance

See Sections 5.3.5 5.3.7 or Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design Standard

Exceptions

*Courtyard Width counts toward the required BuildTo

Amendment: 5

189



5.3-18 |




H. Apartment (1 of 2)

B B

CC

D D

EE

ALLEY

A L L E Y

S I D E S T R E E T

S I D E S T R E E T


T R E E

T

F

A L L E Y

A

PRIMARY STREETPRIMARY STREET

Not to Scale. Illustrativ e Only.

190



| 5.3-19




APARTMENT 1 OF 2

H E I G H T URH3A*

A Stories (max) 3

A Feet (max) 38’

S I T I N G URH3A*

ZONE LOT

Zone Lot Size (min/max) 6,000 t2 / 16,000 t2

Zone Lot Width (min) 50’

Dwelling Units per Primary Residential Structure (min) 3

SETBACKS

B Primary Street, block sensitive setback required yes

BPrimary Street, where block sensitive setback does not

apply (min)20’

C Side Street (min) 10’

D

Side Interior (min) 5’E Rear, alley/no alley (min) 12’/20’

PARKING


Primary Street/Side StreetNot Allowed/Allowed

Vehicle AccessShall be determined as part o Site De-

velopment Plan Review

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S URH3A*


Street acing garage door width per Primary Structure

(max)20’


F Pedestrian Access, Primary Street or Side StreetEntrance

See Sections 5.3.5 5.3.7 or Supplemental Design Standards, Design Standard Alternatives and Design

Standard Exceptions

*Form is permitted ONLY on corner zone lots where at least one o the intersecting streets is a collector or

arterial street, according to the unctional street classications adopted by the Public Works Department.

Amendment: 5

191



5.3-20 |




I. Apartment (2 of 2)

I

H

L

J KP R I M A R Y S T R E E T PROPERTY

LINE

PROTECTED

DISTRICT

S I D E S

T R E E

T

A L L E Y

DD D

EE

FF FF

GG

B BB

C C

PRIMARY STREET

ALLEY

S I D E S T R E E T

S I D E S T R E E T

G

A


192



| 5.3-21




APARTMENT 2 OF 2UMX2 UMS2

H E I G H T UMX2x UMX3 URX5 UMS2x UMS3 UM

A Stories (max) 2 3 5 2 3

A Feet (min/max) na/32’ na/40’ na/65’ na/35’ na/40’ 24

UMX2 UMS2

S I T I N G UMX2x UMX3 URX5 UMS2x UMS3 UM

ZONE LOT

Use RestrictionsResidential Only. MS: Ground Story within the required build-to portion must have a

one primary use, other than parking o vehicles

REQUIRED BUILD-TO

B Primary Street (min % within min/max) 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’ 70% 0’/15’ 75% 0’/10’ 75% 0’/10’ 75%

C Side Street (min % within min/max ) na na na 25% 0’/10’ 25% 0’/10’ 25%

SETBACKS

D Primary Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

E Side Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

F Side Interior (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’


10’10’ 10’

U-MS-2x: 5’

10’10’ 1

G Rear, alley and no alley (min) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no alley

(min)0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’

PARKING


Primary Street/Side StreetNot Allowed/Allowed MS: Not Allowed/Not Allowed

Vehicle Access Shall be determined as part o Site Development Plan Review

UMX2 UMS2

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S UMX2x UMX3 URX5 UMS2x UMS3 UM


H

Upper Story Setback Above 27’adjacent to Pro-

tected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side

Interior (min)

na 15’/25’ 20’/25’ na 15’/25’ 20

I

Upper Story Setback Above 51’, adjacent to Pro-

tected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley and Side

Interior (min)

na na 35’/40’ na na 35

Street acing garage door width per Primary Struc-

ture (max)20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 20’ 2


J Transparency, Primary Street (min) 30% 30% 30% 40% 40%

K Transparency, Side Street (min) 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

L Pedestrian Access, Primary Street Entrance

193



5.3-22 |




J. Drive Thru Services

A

PRIMARY STREET

S I D E S T R E E T


S I D E S

T R E E

T

D

G

EF

B

J

C

K

L

I H


194





DRIVE THRU SERVICESUMX2 UMX3

H E I G H T UMS 2 UMS3, 5

A Stories (max) 2 3

A Feet (max) 35’ 45’

UMS2, 3, 5 UMX2, 3 UMX2, 3

S I T I N G Option A Option A Option B

ZONE LOT

Use Restrictions

Automobile Services, Light and/or Primary Use with Accessory Drive Thru Use, excluding Ea

Drinking Establishments Additionally, in U-MX-2, 3 Option B is limited to Gasoline Service St

Use Only

REQUIRED BUILD-TO

B Primary Street (min % within min/max)* 50% 0’/15’ 50% 0’/15’ na

C Side Street (min % within min/max)* 50% 0’/15’ 50% 0’/15’ na

SETBACKS

D Primary Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

E

Side Street (min) 0’ 0’ 0’F Side Interior (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

Side Interior, adjacent to Protected District

(min)10’ 10’ 10’

G Rear, alley and no alley (min) 0’ 0’ 0’

Rear, adjacent to Protected District, alley/no

alley (min)0’/10’ 0’/10’ 0’/10’

PARKING


Primary Street/Side StreetNot Allowed/Not Allowed Not Allowed/Allowed Allowed/Allowe

Vehicle Access Shall be determined as part o Site Development Plan Review

UMS2, 3, 5 UMX2, 3 UMX2, 3

D E S I G N E L E M E N T S Option A Option A Option BBUILDING CONFIGURATION

H *Canopy

Building shall be used to

meet a portion o the Prima-

ry and Side Street Build-To.

Canopy may be used to meet

a portion o the Primary and

Side Street Build-To

Building shall be used to meet a

portion o the Primary or Side Street

Build-To. Canopy may be used to

meet a portion o the Primary and

Side Street Build-To

na

I Screening Required

Garden Wall required within 0’/15’ or 100% o the zone lot’s Primary and Side Street ronta

excluding access points and portions o building within 0’/15’, ollowing the standards o A

10, Section 10.5.4.3

Upper Story Setback Above 27’ adjacent to

Protected District: Rear, alley/Rear, no alley

and Side Interior (min)

U-MS-3, -5 Only: 15’/25’ U-MX-3 Only: 15’/25’ U-MX-3 Only: 15’/


J Transparency, Primary Street (min) 60% 40%

K Transparency, Side Street (min) 25% 25% 25%

L Pedestrian Access, Primary Street Entrance Entrance Pedestrian Connec

form-based codes and historic preservation: a case study primer

Documents