[Durham INC] Beyond form-based code

[Don Moffitt]

I love discussions! I hadn't thought about these issues, and they are
definitely worthy of consideration. I don't know how other communities
might have addressed them, but some issues--like affordable housing--are
pretty clear up-front. Even now, some development requirements are based on
performance standards. Road improvements, for example, are based on
projected traffic counts. Typically the developer has a study done using
professional engineers and best practices. NCDOT and our local
transportation department review the study for accuracy, and base required
improvements on the results of the study in combination with performance
goals previously established. I could see a performance requirement--like
job creation--being handled in the same manner. The inclusion of a certain
amount of solar energy could work that way as well. And usually those items
have to be done prior to the certificate of compliance being issued. No
CoC, no occupancy and no revenues. That's a pretty big stick!

I agree--it seems like performance standards could be incorporated into
form-based zones (and use-based zones as well).

Don





On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:14 PM, KJJarrett <kjj1bg at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Zoning is arcane, and I don't understand it will. But with performance
> based zoning, what happens when the goals aren't met . . . . but the
> project has been built? Kind of like buying a car: The advertising at the
> dealer asserts that "this model gets XX MPH city/ XX MPH highway." But you
> know that in reality you'll never reach those numbers, the question is just
> how far off are the numbers. I'm skeptical of the performance-based
> proposal because when they've promised XX jobs, or low carbon footprint and
> they don't meet the standards, then what? Maybe this is why it has been
> dropped in many places where its been tried?
>
> And how do their projections get double-checked? Because why would we
> trust the developer's studies or numbers without double-checking them? Are
> cities going to pick up that expense? I don't see that happening, which
> seems it would leave citizens with little to fall back on.
>
> Finally--why couldn't there be a combination? I don't understand why LEED
> & carbon footprint requirements couldn't be combined w/form-based zoning.
>
> Kelly J Jarrett
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Don Moffitt <don.moffitt at gmail.com>
> *To:* Tom Miller <tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com>
> *Cc:* Julie McClintock <mcclintock.julie at gmail.com>; inc listserv <
> inc-list at durhaminc.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Durham INC] Beyond form-based code
>
> Use based zoning, form based zoning, performance based zoning. Why is one
> inclusionary, another exclusionary? All of them are based on a zone, which
> is set in a legislative process--planning commission and governing
> body--with opportunity for public input.
>
> I didn't see "spaces not sprawl" in the article, and I can't figure out
> who the whore in the metaphor is. But I found this interesting:
>
> "Planners started with a set of goals—a certain number of jobs, a certain
> number of homes including affordable homes, and critically, strict
> standards for a low carbon footprint. However developers achieve all that
> is their business."
>
> Right now there's a case pending in front of the Durham Planning
> Commission where the discussion is performance based. It's near a transit
> stop, and from what I've heard the discussion centered around the need for
> affordable housing. That's performance, not use.
>
> Just as with form and performance based zoning, if a project meets use
> zone criteria the development is "by right", thereby seemingly excluding
> citizen participation to the same extent the other types of zoning would.
>
> Don't get me wrong--I'm not ready to adopt performance-based zoning. I
> just think the article was interesting and the concept intriguing,
> especially for areas much like the one featured in the article--the ones
> around future transit stops.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Tom Miller <tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The complaint with performance based zoning is that it is exclusive.  It
> is the final step in cementing the idea that city planning is a
> conversation between developers and the city planners with no input from
> ordinary citizens.  It turns zoning from a public legislative idea into a
> permit process.  “If you can meet these criteria, you can do what you
> want.”  No review, no input.  Everything becomes of-right.  The process
> becomes an algorithm.  Usually so complicated that only the professionals
> and those who can afford to pay for them can be involved in a meaningful
> way.  No wonder it never got off the ground.  Dressing it up with fluff
> like “Spaces not sprawl” is just the new kimono on the very familiar
> practitioner of the oldest profession.
>
> Tom
>
> *From:* INC-list [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] *On Behalf Of *Pat
> Carstensen
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 14, 2014 7:43 AM
> *To:* inc listserv; Julie McClintock
> *Subject:* [Durham INC] Beyond form-based code
>
> There is "performance based zoning"
>
>
> http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/08/braving-the-new-world-of-performance-based-zoning/375926/
>
> Of course, you would have to decide on what you want to accomplish.
>
> Regards, pat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20140814/b019a77e/attachment.html>