How would this be Zoned ? RPD ?

This project from "Work AC" for the odd-shaped block at Canal and Varick Streets in New York City sets one's mind a buzz! Can you imagine the discussions in Lee County's Department of Community Development on which level should be where to met the intent of the LEE Plan and how it meets the proper set backs and density for our zoning codes.

The Wonderful World of Zoning

I found this painting by Josh Keyes, it appeared to me, that he was trying to capture that world of Zoning that some of us have to deal with to get projects built. Ying and Yang !

Are We In Good Hands ?

This article by Elizabeth Rhodes from the Seattle Time of February 15, 2008, makes one think, should the BOCC and City governments be reviewing our codes to see where they are costing our residences money ?

UW study: Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price

By Elizabeth Rhodes

Seattle Times business reporter

Backed by studies showing that middle-class Seattle residents can no longer afford the city's middle-class homes, consensus is growing that prices are too darned high. But why are they so high?

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

"In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations," he says.

A key regulation is the state's Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area's unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

Long building-permit approval times and municipal land-use restrictions upheld by courts also have played significant roles in increasing Seattle's housing costs, he adds.

(While his data reflect owner-occupied homes within the city of Seattle only, Eicher thinks the same basic findings may apply to surrounding cities.)

Eicher's $200,000 conclusion doesn't surprise Kriss Sjoblom, staff economist for the Washington Research Council, a nonpartisan organization that examines public-policy issues.

"It's actually pleasing," Sjoblom says, "that we finally have data that allows us to show things we thought were there all the time."

A UW professor for 13 years, Eicher is also the founding director of the UW's Economic Policy Research Center. Its goal is to provide analysis that will inform regional policy debates.

Eicher says the research center long wanted to analyze the impact of regulation on housing prices, and found a way when researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index. Based on a survey of more than 2,500 U.S. municipalities, it provided the first nationwide analysis and comparison of the effects of land-use regulation.

Eicher requested Seattle's data from the Wharton Index and analyzed it further. That led him to put a price tag on local land-use regulations.

He received no outside funding for the project and stresses he makes no value judgments about whether regulation is good, bad or needs to change.

Rather, Eicher wants the public to "understand the impact of their choices. There's always a cost associated with the cityscape. Who wants to have no parks in the city? Or, a 10-story high-rise in Blue Ridge? But there's a cost to that."

Compared with 250 major U.S. cities, he says, Seattle:

• Is first in terms of the impact of state political involvement in land issues.

• Is in the top 3 percent for approval delays for new construction.

• Is in the top 10 percent in local political pressure influencing land use.

As an example of how this plays out, Eicher explains that "the statewide growth-management plan gave King County few options but to require that landowners in rural areas that haven't already cleared their land to keep 50 to 65 percent of their property in its 'natural state.' This forced greater density in Seattle."

Then a King County referendum to repeal some of the county's land-use restrictions was judged illegal in 2006 by the state Supreme Court because it violated the state's Growth Management Act.

"The state is intervening to restrict supply. It's not that there's no land at all," Eicher says.

Economists hold that housing costs are driven by supply and demand, and say those factors have certainly influenced the cost of Seattle's housing.

But Eicher argues that "demand does not need to drive up housing prices."

Cities such as Houston and Atlanta, which have few growth restrictions, have shown that. They've been able to add enough housing to meet demand, so their home prices have risen more moderately than heavily regulated San Francisco and Boston, which have a harder time increasing housing.

According to the Wharton study, cities such as Seattle that have high median incomes, high home prices and a large percentage of college-educated workers tend to have the most land-use regulations.

Sjoblom says that makes sense: "People with higher incomes want the kind of amenities that regulation provides," he says. "If you're a homeowner and growth controls are imposed and housing prices shoot up, you're grandfathered because you own the place. In theory people will say it's [rising prices] a bad thing, but in practice it's not hurting them."

Sjoblom says that's why making the changes that would foster affordability are so hard to get past the public, some 68 percent of whom are homeowners. "When you bring up specific things, like allowing multifamily housing in their neighborhood, they have misgivings."

That frustrates renters, who suspect they're being priced out. And they're right, according to a housing-affordability index created by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at Washington State University.

Last summer, King County's potential first-time buyers earning the median family income ($75,143) had just 37 percent of the financial wherewithal to buy the median-priced single-family house ($477,000) at the prevailing interest rate (6.47 percent).

Five years earlier, when King County's median-priced house cost $282,500, median-income, first-time buyers possessed 72 percent of the income needed.

(No breakout statistics are available for Seattle.)

But various government regulations make it challenging to add more affordable housing, notes Sam Anderson. He's executive officer of the Master Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties, which has pushed government to rethink some of the regulations.

Anderson estimates that regulatory costs comprise up to 30 percent of the total cost of building a new house (land costs included). The laundry list of fees and requirements can run to 30 or more, depending on where the house is built.

Among them, Anderson says, are transportation, school and park impact fees, stormwater management fees, critical-areas mitigation and monitoring, pavement requirements and rockery permits.

And then there's the dollar cost of the process itself.

Building in Seattle can be very time-consuming compared with nearby cities, because of Seattle's neighborhood-based design-review process, says Linda Stalzer, project development director for the Dwelling Company, an Eastside homebuilder.

Design-review committees, composed of citizens interested in architecture and development, are located throughout Seattle; their job is to review commercial and multifamily housing designs before they're approved.

"Depending on how complicated your project is, it might take you three or four times to get through it," Stalzer says.

Add together all the various review and comment periods, and it can take 12 to 18 months to get to the point of applying for a building permit, she says.

On a 25-unit Capitol Hill town-house project now under way, Stalzer estimated the various fees (including consulting and mitigation costs, but not building permits or land prices) have totaled about $650,000.

"I think there's value in going through the process because we're building things that have an impact on communities," Stalzer says. "The difficult part is the process isn't very efficient."

In the final analysis, Eicher believes Seattle's regulatory climate exists because its residents want it. "My sense is land-use restrictions are imposed to generate socially desirable outcomes," he says. "We all love parks and green spaces. But we must also be informed about the costs. It's very easy to vote for a park if you think the cost is free."

Elizabeth Rhodes: erhodes@seattletimes.com

We Are Watching

Did you ever get the feeling this is what Planning and Zoning are all about ? Remember planning is not zoning and zoning is not planning. Is our community any better off by the government taking the community's resident's property rights away from them for the false premise that it is for the communities good ?

•Remember in the 1926 Supreme Court case Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of comprehensive zoning, only because, a planner and attorney Alfred Bettman submitted a "friend of the court" breif on behalf of the Village of Euclid, arguing that zoning is a form of nuisance control and therefore a reasonable police power measure. The court agreed. The court did not agree with the arguments made by the Village of Euclid that zoning should be used to protect the general welfare of the community.

•

•

Six things you might not know about planning

I found this in a blog called Intermodality. Though this is about a concern in Houston,, TX, it is very useful for us in viewing Planning and Zoning in Lee County and how these two issues effect us.

Six things you might not know about planning

2008 started with a new development in an old Houston debate. Former mayor Bob Lanier and several real estate developers have organized a PAC to fight increased building regulations, speaking to city council and bringing in anti-planning speakers. It might seem as if old battle lines have been re-drawn, and we’re in for another zoning fight. But things are not nearly that simple. Here are some ways in which the usual assumptions are wrong:

There are more than two sides to this debate. In fact, I count four. Bob Lanier is pro-growth and anti-planning. The people fighting the Ashby highrise are anti-growth and pro-planning; they want new regulations to prevent new development in their neighborhoods. But many of the people talking about planning are actually pro-growth and pro-planning; they see Houston is growing and they want that growth to happen intelligently. And if you look hard enough you’ll find people who are anti-growth and anti-planning; they probably think that the problem is illegal immigration or maybe public subsidies for sports stadiums. It’s the anti-growth/ pro-planning people who are setting the agenda right now; a backlash against unplanned growth in established neighborhoods is leading many to want to stop growth altogether. That worries the pro-growth, anti-planning developers. But it also worries the pro-growth, pro-planning crowd. The thing to watch is who allies with whom.

Houston already has building regulations. Houston’s development regulations regulate how far buildings have to be from the street, how much parking has to be provided, how much green space there needs to be around buildings, and much more. The net effect is to limit density, increase the cost of urban development, and encourage suburban-style development. And while the city doesn’t implement use-based zoning, deed restrictions in most Houston neighborhoods do. Deed restrictions are actually more draconian than government zoning since they are so hard to change.

The Houston region has some of the strictest zoning in the country. Planned communities are called that for a reason. Every large suburban development in Houston has an extensive set of restrictions that govern the shape, appearance, and use of buildings. These are as strict as anything a government agency ever dreamed of. And suburban cities like Sugar Land has extensive government-imposed zoning as well.

Planning doesn’t imply zoning. Government agencies spend a lot of money on building things: roads, sewers, drainage, water lines, parks, transit, fire stations, libraries. These things are the infrastructure of growth, so where and how they are built helps determine where growth will happen. Harris County, the City of Houston, and the Texas Department of Transportation are routinely predicting and encouraging development by building new roads and new highways. They’re also trying to keep up with growth. But the agencies that build these things often don’t talk to each other. Simply coordinating the efforts of multiple agencies to avoid costly duplication and to cost-effectively support growth could go a long way.

Zoning doesn’t imply planning. In the perfect world of a textbooks, planners divide a city into zones based on some broad vision. In reality, zoning has to be tailored to existing conditions, and then it’s repeatedly changed based on the desires of neighborhoods and developers. The result is a mess, dictated not by a coherent plan but by whoever has the most political clout. These random and oddly specific rules often have strange results: there’s a new condo development in New York where owners can’t stay more than 120 days a year and no more than 39 days in a row since it’s zoned as a hotel.

Developers dislike uncertainty more than they dislike rules. Buying land and developing a building is a risky business: you’re making a bet that you can building on time and on budget and that the market is on your side. Regulations that are unclear, or regulations that require the developer to get political approvals, add to that risk. Neighborhoods often push for such regulations. But the irony is that neighborhoods benefit for unambiguous rules, too, since they mean it’s not necessary to mobilize and fight each new development proposal.

There is an intriguing possibility here. Conventional zoning is clearly imperfect, and so is Houston’s current regulatory system. Could we come up with something that’s better than either? Or will we simply re-fight old fights based on incorrect assumptions?

Creative Development

The question is, would the developer be able to get it zoned with all the variances needed ? Where does it fit into our comprehensive plan ? But most importantly, would the Department of Community Development, Hearings Examiner, and BOCC all have the VISION and FORTITUDE to see a project like this through without the attitude of; "let's run this developer out of time and money" And let's not forget the Impact Fees !

Village Law ?

The Antiplanner recently had an interesting article on a proposal by Robert Nelson, a University of Maryland professor, to change our antiquated zoning laws...

Missouri Law Should Be a Model for the Nation

How do we fix planning and zoning laws that make housing unaffordable and give planners the opportunity to impose their utopian ideas on unwilling neighborhoods? One answer has been offered by Robert Nelson, a University of Maryland professor of public policy. In various articles and books, Nelson has proposed that states allow neighborhoods to opt out of zoning and write their own zoning codes in the form of protective covenants.

Houston already has a system like this, albeit without zoning. Anyone who lives in a neighborhood that doesn’t already have protective covenants can petition their neighbors and, if a majority agree, create a homeowners association and write such covenants. Nelson has essentially proposed to allow this in all cities, and to slowly replace zoning with such covenants.

But what about rural areas? Should people be allowed to opt out of rural zoning? Since the Antiplanner is not too fond of such rural zoning, clearly my answer would be “yes.” And a law recently passed in Missouri effectively allows this to take place.

According to this law, landowners in an unincorporated area may form a “village” provided they have the approval of a majority of the people living in that area. This village would then take over zoning and other regulatory powers from the counties. Developers frustrated by county planners and bureaucratic red tape can effectively do an end run around them.

As described in this recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, this law has the counties hopping mad because it tramples on their authority. They claim dire consequences if landowners only have to obey federal and state laws — as if there weren’t enough of those — instead of also having to follow county ordinances.

Obviously, the Antiplanner is not persuaded by these claims. California and other states with planning-induced housing shortages would do well to pass a law modeled after Missouri’s village law.

Form-Based Code

I found this article over at STREETSCAPES Online, a "James Hardie" site. I know that I have in the past posted about Form-Based Codes, but again, I believe that words say more about what we could have instead of what we are getting from our zoning. Please notte that inthe illustrations it states that Sarasota County adopted the Form-Based Code in August 2007.

Institute Teaches Planning and Development Professionals about Form-Based Codes

According to the Institute's definition, Form-Based Codes provide "a method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-Based Codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form primarily, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations."

"Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land-use types, permissible property uses, an the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, height limits, setbacks, parking ratios). Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory."

The coding process usually begins as part of the master planning process. It is often developed in what is referred to as a charrette, a weeklong brainstorming session involving residents and planners to determine what is desired for the neighborhood. A draft of the Form-Based Code will typically be created by the end of that intensive process, according to Peter Katz, President of The Form-Based Codes Institute (FBCI). "Once you know the plan, it's very easy to codify it," he says. In fact, Katz believes that writing the code during the planning workshop helps to achieve a better outcome. "Time can be the enemy of a great plan," he says, "I’ve seen great plans become watered down by codes that get drafted months and years later."

Exhibits from the Form-Based Code adopted by Sarasota County, Florida in August, 2007.
Source: Sarasota County, Florida

In Living Color
Form-Based Codes, in contrast to conventional codes, are closely linked to illustrative plans and colorful renderings that are easy for citizens to understand. The codes themselves are organized in a clear and highly visual format. (More conventional zoning documents consist of stacks of bone-dry regulations, mostly in text form.) Because such regulations are more user-friendly, the Form-Based approach makes it easier for ordinary citizens to see what the end result of a neighborhood transformation will look like—ideally resulting in greater community support for the project.

By literally sketching out a big picture view of the city, planners can also create a more harmonious block-by-block, neighborhood-by-neighborhood transformation from city center to the outskirts (some planners call this a transect), by designating the choice of building type, frontage type and streetscapes along the way. The codes also include carefully worked-out standards for sidewalk widths, street lighting, tree placement and more to help create more inviting public spaces for residents.

Assistance for Planners
For city planners pondering a break from decades of conventional use-based codes, a move to Form-Based Codes can be daunting. To that end, The Form-Based Codes Institute conducts educational programs around the United States, consisting of three successive courses: An Introductory Course, a Design Intensive Workshop and a capstone course on Completing, Adopting and Administering the Code. Katz, who teaches at several of the courses, says most of the attendees are planners who work for city and county governments, but that the classes also attract consultant planners, architects, developers and attorneys.

(FBCI will present its introductory course November 15-17, 2007 In Atlanta. Click here for details.)

Feedback on the courses has been overwhelmingly positive, according to Carol Wyant, Executive Director of the FBCI. Wyant says attendees appreciate learning the different ways to do Form-Based Codes and how to adapt them in different parts of the country. One student proclaimed: "We will be implementing FBCs in a section of our city and hope to do a great job of it. This served to clarify many issues." Said another: "The field exercise was great—it really set this conference apart from others."

Old School vs. New School
In his travels around the country, Katz has discovered that many cities that use 'conventional zoning' are fighting over issues, such as density, use and materials selection that "ultimately have little impact on the way a place looks and feels." He believes that other factors, such as how a building fronts a street or what percentage of the front of the lot is occupied by a building, are far more important to making a great place. By taking a closer look at Form-Based Codes, planners will find the implementation tools to help fight sprawl and spark new life in moribund neighborhoods. "There's a widespread sense that form-based coding is a viable regulatory approach that in some situations can achieve real breakthrough results," Katz says.

As one course attendee commented: "FBCs are a valuable tool that is now coming into widespread use. The more practitioners know, the more it will be used."

Eight Advantages to Form-Based Codes

1. Because they are prescriptive (they state what you want), rather than proscriptive (what you don't want), form-based codes (FBCs) can achieve a more predictable physical result. The elements controlled by FBCs are those that are most important to the shaping of a high quality built environment.

2. FBCs encourage public participation because they allow citizens to see what will happen where-leading to a higher comfort level about greater density, for instance.

3. Because they can regulate development at the scale of an individual building or lot, FBCs encourage independent development by multiple property owners. This obviates the need for large land assemblies and the megaprojects that are frequently proposed for such parcels.

4. The built results of FBCs often reflect a diversity of architecture, materials, uses, and ownership that can only come from the actions of many independent players operating within a communally agreed-upon vision and legal framework.

5. FBCs work well in established communities because they effectively define and codify a neighborhood's existing "DNA." Vernacular building types can be easily replicated, promoting infill that is compatible with surrounding structures.

6. Non-professionals find FBCs easier to use than conventional zoning documents because they are much shorter, more concise, and organized for visual access and readability. This feature makes it easier for nonplanners to determine whether compliance has been achieved.

7. FBCs obviate the need for design guidelines, which are difficult to apply consistently, offer too much room for subjective interpretation, and can be difficult to enforce. They also require less oversight by discretionary review bodies, fostering a less politicized planning process that could deliver huge savings in time and money and reduce the risk of takings challenges.

8. FBCs may prove to be more enforceable than design guidelines. The stated purpose of FBCs
is the shaping of a high quality public realm, a presumed public good that promotes healthy civic interaction. For that reason compliance with the codes can be enforced, not on the basis of aesthetics but because a failure to comply would diminish the good that is sought. While enforceability of development regulations has not been a problem in new growth areas controlled by private covenants, such matters can be problematic in already-urbanized areas due to legal conflicts with first amendment rights.

~ Peter Katz, President, Form-Based Codes Institute

For more information, visit www.formbasedcodes.org

10 Tips to City

Interestingly I just returned from Philadelphia and had been reading about the city's struggles with rewriting their arcane, politically structured zoning code.See here. Then today, I found this article which it would be nice if our local political structure took the time to read and start to implement. Remembering, that the first step is realizing there is a problem.

Posted on Wed, Oct. 17, 2007 from The Philadelphia Inquire

10 tips to city for building

By Karen Black and Robert Rosenthal

In the spring, Philadelphia voters overwhelmingly approved the creation of a Zoning Code Commission to reform and modernize Philadelphia's 50-year-old zoning code.

The code is so outdated that it defines a milliner (a hat maker), but offers no definition for a technology firm, an outpatient clinic, or a self-storage warehouse.

That's about to change.

For three years, we have been working with a coalition seeking to make changes in Philadelphia's zoning and development review process. We have participated in dozens of meetings with zoning commission members, planning directors, and zoning experts from other cities who were responsible for modernizing their codes. As Philadelphia begins the work of zoning reform, we'd like to offer our top 10 tips.

Listen. Listening is the first act of every successful zoning reform commission. Holding public listening sessions in every city neighborhood helps commission members learn about the code's impact on different communities, view zoning from new perspectives, and send a clear message that reform will be an open and inclusive process.

Determine code weaknesses. Commissions must quickly identify the code's weaknesses. Cities that successfully updated their codes hired nationally recognized zoning experts and local consultants to analyze the code to determine where it had to be modernized, simplified and restructured to offer consistency, predictability and transparency.

Report key findings early. Commissions in Chicago and Portland, Ore., released reports detailing the failings of their codes and offering recommendations for change. Releasing these findings for public comment ensures that the mayor, council and public agreed on the commission's purpose and priorities early on.

Simplify. Philadelphia's code is 600 pages and almost dares readers to make sense of it. It is complicated, hard to use, and harder to consistently enforce because of the thousands of amendments over the years. In other cities, success required a major "code cleanup" that included modern definitions to reflect today's world, one-stop shopping for clear zoning designation descriptions, and helpful pictures and diagrams.

Make reform a public process. Zoning reform requires intensive public education and outreach that includes public meetings (San Diego held 250), a regularly updated Web site, and a determined communications effort.

Keep zoning designations and overlays simple. Philadelphia has 55 zoning districts, 31 of them residential. Chicago has just eight residential zoning districts. Pittsburgh has five. Fewer districts mean clearer rules and a more transparent code.

Choose "street sense" over code adherence. Older cities like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee found that adding a "contextual zoning" provision offered the best way to preserve and strengthen a neighborhood's unique look. Contextual zoning requires the city to consider the look of the existing block when determining whether a new development is appropriate.

Find big ideas that define the city's zoning goals. This approach forces the city to develop a common vision about its look and future growth. Other cities' big ideas include preserving the classic architecture of existing neighborhoods, revitalizing neighborhood commercial corridors, minimizing sign clutter, and reducing the percentage of land zoned for industrial use.

Be flexible. Experts advise taking important changes to the city council for adoption throughout the process, rather than waiting until the process is completed. In Milwaukee, 75 percent of the changes in the new code were adopted during the three-year process. This made reform easier and added consistency and predictability to the code much sooner than expected.

Limit controversy. While it is tempting to take on every zoning issue, successful reform initiatives limit the number of controversial issues they try to resolve during the first phase. Too much controversy stalls or stops the process, and a lot of good work is lost. If we are successful in reforming the Philadelphia code, that in itself will create momentum for further reform.

---

Karen Black is principal of May 8 Consulting Inc., a firm in Moylan that analyzes public policy. Robert Rosenthal is vice president of the Reinvestment Fund Development Partners in Philadelphia.

It is amazing that the city of Philadelphia's government realizes there is a problem and has set about fixing it. Yet our local governments are glued to a 1926 Supreme Court ruling (Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)).

Zoning Ideas from Elsewhere

From the Philadelphia Inquire, here are some examples of how other cities are rewriting and reviewing their zoning codes. The Philadelphia Inquire also had an excellent article about Philadelphia's changes in their antiquated and political charged zoning codes.
Philadelphia Inquire - Posted on Sun, Oct. 7, 2007

Zoning and Planning Ideas From Elsewhere

Miami – From sprawlage to village In Miami, a three-year project will replace the city's old, sprawl-generating code with a new model, called "Miami 21." The buzzword for the new code is "form-based." It aims to create compact, traditional neighborhoods with building forms that provide a coherent public realm. Famed New Urbanist architect Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, a Main Line native, argues that form-based zoning can retrofit Miami with the atmosphere of an urban village. http://www.miami21.org

Denver - Props for process Already renowned for its redeveloped LoDo (lower downtown) warehouse district, Denver launched a three-step regional planning campaign that is a model for citizen engagement. It started with Plan 2000, shaped by 11 citizen task forces. Next came "Blueprint Denver," a land-use and transportation plan. These set up step three, the zoning-code revision that is happening now. Throughout, Denver planners used listening sessions, open houses and a Web site to keep the public on board. http://www.denvergov. org/ZoningSimplification/HomePage/tabid/396395/Default.aspx

Boston - A custom-made city

Rather than allow politicians

to tweak neighborhood zoning at will, Boston invites neighborhoods to customize their own zoning district to match neighborhood goals. Intense civic involvement means this takes four years per neighborhood, with regular meetings of a citizen advisory committee guided

by planners from the Boston Redevelopment Authority. They've been at it since 1989, with immense public support. http://cityofboston.gov/bra/zoning/zoning.asp.

If these large metropolitan areas realize that they have zoning problems, why can the BOCC not be reviewing our zone mess? Where is our LEADERSHIP ?

Zoning Road Blocks

Have you ever rely thought about how we got into the zoning mess we are in because of zoning laws. First let's check Wikipedia about Zoning. The planning sketch above illustrates why we have the traffic problems that plague our communities. If you look at the upper half of the drawing (sprawl), you will see that each development project must separately connect to the road. This means that for each trip to a different project, each car must go out onto that same road. It creates a system of non connectivity, which leads to total GRIDLOCK and CONGESTION. If you look at the bottom development (traditional town), your eye can see multiple ways to travel to you destination without every going on that one main road. And yet our planners who wrote these codes, seem unable to understand this simple concept, or do not have the political courage to find the vehicle to address this issue with the BOCC. And members of the BOCC complain about the traffic problems and the costs associated with the traffic. Then again, the BOCC seems able to think that the way to solve the problem is through moratoriums, zoning denials and the wonderful community groups that are having great input into a broken system.

There is truly, a lack of real VISION on the part of the BOCC. The real question becomes, "Are we happy with the status quo that so effects our daily life's?"

Why not put together a community road show in the form of a charrette to give the residences of the county options. Such as our current system (Euclidean), Performance, Incentive or Form Based zoning. This does not mean, creating more community groups under the cover of their having more input into their local community area. How does that work if the model that they are using is broken? Let us give the citizens of Lee County a chance to give input into a real VISION of what the county should become and not use the eighty (80) year old template! I believe as a society we have learned a lot in that time period. Just think, we have gone to the moon, and yet we are using zoning codes modeled from 1926. To give an example, look at a car from 1926 and than a new 2007 automobile. They look different. What about our zoning laws. The only thing that has changed, is that the staffs have learned how to make them more one sided (to create an advantage for the staff in reviewing projects and costly to the citizens, " The fox watching the chicken coop!"), restrictive (and not always for the communities best interest) and inflexible and slow to societies changes and requirements.

It is time for the BOCC to create a BOLD VISION and break with the past! The system is broken, let's fix it.

Smart Code

If the you were not excited with our proposal for the county to change to a "Form Based Code", how about a Smart Code as written by DPZ. Both of these alternatives are much better than our existing bureaucratic mess.

Here is the explanation from the first page of the "Smart Code" web site.

Welcome to Smart Code Central

The Smart Code is a model design and development code released by Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ) in 2003, after two decades of research and implementation.

The Smart Code is the only unified transect-based code available for all scales of planning, from the region to the community to the block and building. As a form-based code, it keeps towns compact and rural lands open, while reforming the destructive sprawl-producing patterns of separated-use zoning. The Smart Code is designed for calibration to your town or neighborhood.

Smart Code Central collects all the important components of Smart Code planning in one place. We provide up-to-date files of the latest versions of the model Smart Code, we offer supplementary Modules and Plug-Ins, and we link to all the calibrators, attorneys, and town planners who do significant work with the Smart Code.

Smart Code Central is for everyone who wants to conserve, create, and complete good places — all along the Transect.

County Growth Direction

I was reading this article in the News-Press about Commissioner Mann's comments at a recent BUPAC meeting as reported below...

Mann speaks out

Lee County Commissioner Frank Mann was the featured speaker at BUPAC (Businesspeople United for Political Action Committee) this week, where growth-related issues took up much of his address.

In about 20 years, Mann, said, experts predict Lee County will be about $2 billion behind on needed roads and highways, leading him to question why the county should move so fast to create gridlock.

“There’s 800,000 buildable lots vacant right now in Lee County, so when I said OK, no more zoning changes to allow more, I don’t think I hurt a single builder,” Mann said. “I think 800,000 new units are probably enough. People say they don’t want another Fort Lauderdale here, but that’s exactly where we’re headed. Why should we talk about granting additional density when we’re destroying our quality of life?”
With no new revenue sources in sight, and pressure growing from the state and from local residents to cut spending, Mann said the board has to look at every new service and cost.

Originally published in the News-Press by Betty Parker on 8/31/07

This gets back to an earlier post on staff "reading the tea leaves" wrong information, which . This statement is a prime example of why staff's tea leaf reading in regards to zoning can be used by staff to give the BOCCleads to them not being able to make an informed and intelligent answer for doing what is good for the county. I believe that commissioner Mann is right and what he is really saying is...we have a comprehensive plan that is in place, let's stick to it. There is no need to stray outside the confines of the plans that it currently enacted. Developers must stay within the line and policies as defined by our current land uses. At least, I think that is what he is saying. Although, he might be saying as an example, if you are in Urban Community and currently zoned AG-2, he believe that the zoning should not change, even though the code allows the land to chnge from AG-2. Stay tuned!

In the 1980's we had a commissioner who was hell bent on stopping growth. It led to a BOCC that was in turmoil at a huge cost to the residents of the county for the misdirections and roadblocks. In spite of our thick zoning books (Lee Development Code, LCD, Lee Plan, etc.) we still on the whole get poorly planned communities and mediocre houses and the growth will still happen mainly because our staff is not planning but "reading tea leaves". The only thing that can happen, is Lee County's name will be tarnished and it will take years to rebuild it when sounder minds prevail!

Reexamining Our Zoning Direction

If you watch Lee TV and view the Zoning hearings you will start to notice that there is a consistent pattern of non consistence from staff's findings and recommendations to the BOCC. I believe it is called "political pandering". Staff should only be reviewing projects to make sure a project fits into one of the zoning cubbie holes that have been created in the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Maps by staff. Instead their findings tend to reflect what the higher ups in Community Development believe the BOCC growth leanings are at the moment. As I have stated in the past and have been told by staff, "...they are just reading the Tea Leaves" or maybe putting their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. THIS IS NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD BE ZONING OUR PROPERTY. It is another form of TAXING the residents of the county. Remember who pays the bills for all the wasted time, energy and consultant fees...the rsidents each time the use, rent or purchase anything that has gone through the zoning process. In the end, you must ask, "Are you happy with the results from these zoning shenanigans??? If the answer is no, maybe the BOCC should sunset the process and a new form of zoning approved. I believe FORM BASED ZONING may be a better direction for the county.

If you go the the Form Based Codes Institute you will find a wealth of information and links to give you a through understanding of the process and why it is better than the arbitrary and arcane system we now have in place.

Definition of a Form-Based Code
Draft Date: June 27, 2006

A method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form primarily, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations.

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land-use types, permissible property uses, and the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, height limits, setbacks, parking ratios). Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory.

Form-based codes are drafted to achieve a community vision based on time-tested forms of urbanism. Ultimately, a form-based code is a tool; the quality of development outcomes is dependent on the quality and objectives of the community plan that a code implements.

Form-based codes commonly include the following elements:

•	Regulating Plan. A plan or map of the regulated area designating the locations where different building form standards apply, based on clear community intentions regarding the physical character of the area being coded.
•	Building Form Standards. Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define and shape the public realm.
•	Public Space/Street Standards. Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, street trees, street furniture, etc.).
•	Administration. A clearly defined application and project review process.
•	Definitions. A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms.

Form-based codes also sometimes include:

•	Architectural Standards. Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality.
•	Annotation. Text and illustrations explaining the intentions of specific code provisions.

68,500! Is This A Tax 2

Did you know that the Department of Community Development estimates that Lee County by 2025 will need 68,500 new affordable housing units. How does the County respond?

Here is an interesting idea for affordable housing and it does not require any fees. Very simply Granny Flats. Here is an interesting article about the Pros and Cons of Inclusionary Zoning from the winter issue 2007 of "On Common Ground" which speaks to the very issue the BOCC is discussing tomorrow.

My proposal is as follows...
1. No Fees
2. Give staff 2 months to come up with an overlay plan of where the county wants to encourage affordable housing. And what the maximum density that will be allowed in each area. The BOCC votes to approve the criteria.
3. (Here is the real incentive), if the developer meets the written criteria and correct location, they do not have to rezone the property. They go right to the Development Order process. Upon staff approval or denial of the D.O., it goes immediately to the BOCC for approval. (Since the BOCC does not approve the rezoning, the D.O. approval goes to the board for final approval.) A permit is issued directly after approval.
4. The process should be designed so that from application submittal to BOCC voting, it should take no more than (3) three months. (Remember time is money.) Instead of taking the years and a large number of consultants and time to rezone a piece of property as the current system forces everyone into and the false politicizing that staff uses for "red herring" road blocks.

I have always found that if you let the developers do what they do best (plan and build) and keep government staff at bay we will achieve the counties goal. 68,500 units of affordable housing!

Is This A Tax?

I saw this yesterday in the News-Press and it seems to buttress the thought that politicians and staff truly believe that the money you earn is really theirs and you are just temporarily holding it until they need it!

Lee considers raising fees on extra housing units
By Ryan Lengerich
rlengerich@news-press.com
Originally posted on August 09, 2007

Fees to build housing units beyond what Lee County allows could more than triple if commissioners approve the increase at a meeting Tuesday.

If developers want to build more units than the county’s plan allows, they have two options. The developers can make the extra units affordable housing or they can pay the county a fee for each unit which is used to promote affordable housing.

Commissioners are scheduled to hold a public hearing and possibly decide whether to increase the fee from $11,429 per extra unit to $40,000.

Commissioners debated whether to overhaul the program this morning during the monthly management and planning meeting. They directed staff to keep the fee increase hearing on for Tuesday so if passed, it would take effect while they continue reconsider the program.

Paul O’Connor, the county’s director of planning, said the current fee is too low in today’s market.

Now I ask you, is this a tax? If you say no, just wait until you go to buy your next new home! Staff's idea is ...let's hide it, under the guise of the developers need to pay more for the privledge of using their land. The reader will notice, that the staff never acknowledges where the developers are getting the money to pay for this new tripling of a fee. I am positive it is the residents. If a resident wants to live in the targeted development, the purchaser (not the developer) pays an additional $40,000 for the house. Let's get this straight, staff wants the BOCC to push the fees to loan sharks limits, but if the developer does not build market price housing and builds affordable housing, the government, will not charge them these inflated fees. However, staff is not recommending changing the way the zoning process creates huge time delays, demands additional extractions (money), forces the applicant to use high priced consultants and mandates that the developer jump through these hoops three times during the rezoning process. Please remember, that because zoning is a public process there is built in public notification timing that just further slows the process down. Luckily, the BOCC will have hearings where hopefully the pubic will tell the board no way.

I was always told, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck! A tax is a tax!

Zoning by Tea Leaves !

I have been told by a very reliable source that the higher ups in Lee County's Department of Community Development have put out the word to the planning and zoning staff to put the brakes on all development ! This is very interesting, since I have also been told by two different members of staff that they are trying to review projects by reading the "Tea Leaves" (while from their offices they point in the direction of the administration building) on which way the BOCC is leaning and what they want and not if a project correctly meets the letter of the LDC (Lee Development Code) and the Lee Plan. Of course, those same people have over the years written and amended the codes, so there is always within the code some fine print saying that they have the discretion to deny a project for no reason. (... is not consistent with the intent and provisions of Goal 2 of the Lee Plan.) These actions by staff only act as a hidden tax on the residents. Someone has to pay for the constant delays, extractions and addition payments to all the consultants that are needed to get through the arcane process. The thought being...it's ok, just pass the extra costs on to the big bad developer. Staff has never understood where the money comes from... (hint it is not the applicant in the end). But staff will never think they are the cause of any road blocks. It is always the applicant's fault. But who knows what hidden agenda staff may have in regards to the project being reviewed. Also, no one knows how the different departments work in concert to throw up continuing road blocks for the applicant's team to try and work around. Remember they are just reading the "Tea Leaves"!

This is sort of funny. I could have sworn that this is what we elected our five (5) county commissioners for, to make informed decisions, with the staff giving unfiltered information to the Board, so they can try and make good and fair decisions for the county's best interests when they are voting. They should not be voting on what the staff thinks the BOCC wants to hear! Now you have to wonder, who's glasses are the Board looking through and who is trying to manipulate the information? Remember, "We are just reading the Tea Leaves".