Regulatory Methods:

by v.hefti

Preface On
Impacts on Urban Design

Preface on Urban Design

Successful Urban Design begins with successful Urban Planning. Urban Planning ought to have a process, beginning with the identification of problems and issues, a statement of goals to achieve, an inventory and analysis of the site, and finally a plan that addresses the problems and issues, and achieves the goals set forth. Urban planning ought aim to provide quality human experience through the resolution of issues, namely, the ten Principles of Intelligent Urbanism (PIU): environmental sustainability, heritage conservation, appropriate technology, efficiency, placemaking, opportunity matrix, transit oriented development, regional integration, human scale, and institutional integrity (Benninger, 39). The following step, Urban Design, describes the physical features that define the character or image of a street, neighborhood, community, or the city as a whole. Urban design is the visual and sensory relationship between the people and the built environment (San Diego City Council, 1). As such, certain elements or physical features ought be addressed in a cities regulatory method. Several of these deemed important elements are analyzed as Inventory and Urban Design Components in the following two assessments (Conventional Zoning Codes and Form-Based Codes) of Regulatory Methods.

Regulatory Methods:
Objective

Conventional Zoning
Impacts on Urban Design
Analyze a district of Fargo using an inventory of its LDC to determine if the desired effect of an urban planner as well as intention stated in the code is met in a straightforward and legible manner, using a set of urban design components and the objective sense of the ease in doing so.

Inventory LDC District LDC Description

DMU, Downtown Mixed-Use District intended to preserve and enhance the Citys downtown area. The district allows a broad range of uses in order to enhance downtown Fargos role as a commercial, cultural, governmental and residential center. In recognition of existing public facility capacity and downtown planning goals, very intensive development is allowed, with high building coverage, large buildings, and buildings placed close together. Development is intended to be pedestrian-oriented with a strong emphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape (City of Fargo, 20). intended to create and maintain a general visual quality and appearance that will be appealing to people who work in the DMU district and to those who come to the downtown area for goods, services, entertainment or leisure. The regulations are also intended to stimulate and protect investment in the DMU district through the establishment of high standards with respect to materials, details, and appearance (City of Fargo, 20). Prescribed Uses:
Residential: household living, group living. Institutional: colleges, health care, parks/open areas, religious, safety services, daycare, basic utilities (recycling containers screened from view of residential zoning districts and public right-ofway), community service (not 300ft of another community service), detention facilities, schools. Commercial: office, parking commercial, retail sales/services, off-premise advertising signs (> 300ft from residential zoning, religious institution park/recreation area, school or other off-premise advertising. Exceptions: <60sq ft nor 8ft in height

LDC Design Standards Intent

Urban Design Components

Urban Design Components (continued)

which advertise function sponsored by community organization or governmental agency, approved by Zoning Admin.), vehicle repair (site area <15,000sq ft, building size <7,500sq ft), outdoor recreation/entertainment. Industrial: manufacturing/production, warehouse and freight movement, wholesale, aviation, surface transport, major entertainment event, industrial service (if compatible with surrounding land uses, meets Land Development Code requirements for DMU, outdoor storage fenced with 6ft opaque fence, Industrial Service vehicles stored off-site or within a building), telecommunications facilities.

Building Standards:

Maximum Coverage: 100% of lot Maximum Height: None Ground-Floor Transparency: >35% of groundfloor facade along sidewalks comprised of windows, doors and other transparent elements (minimum 4ft in height). Excluded: Residential, where dwelling units occupy the first floor.

Building Materials:

Accepted: All walls visible from the street finished with architectural materials (brick, glass, stone, ceramic, stucco, precast panels, exterior insulation finish systems, curtain walls). Except: single family/small-scale multi-dwelling, typical residential structure exterior materials may be accepted (i.e. residential grade vinyl siding, composite brick, residential grade steel siding). Prohibited: On walls visible from the street: metal panels; non-residential grade metal siding/wood-based materials; asphalt; concrete/ cinder blocks. Permitted: Architectural metal panels and panels for enclosure of mechanical equipment permitted; wood-based materials for architectural treatment; concrete block if burnished, standing flute/sculptured. Mirrored glass/one-way glass with a reflectance >40% prohibited from covering >40% of exterior walls.

Setback Limits:

Minimum: 0ft (unless buildings adjacent are setback, in which case, setback equal to the average setback of adjacent buildings). Listed and charted per road type

Sidewalk Dimensions: Sidewalk Treatment:

None found

Urban Design Components (continued)

Parking Standards: Lighting Standards: Planting Standards: Site Furniture:

Listed and charted per blg sq. ft. None found No street trees on local streets None found

Source: Fargo Municipal Code (1-213)

Analysis Fargos LDC

Fargos LDC by attribute of its drafters is complicated to navigate and comprehend due to organization and word choices, it lacks details for planners, its standards do not meet the intentions it describes, and it doesnt stipulate a pleasant urban experience due to lack of continuity prescriptions (the urban design criteria such as planting, lighting, and site furniture, by which, when carried throughout a site, give not only continuity, but amenity). Fargos LDC describes the intention of the DMU to be pedestrian-oriented withemphasis on a safe and attractive streetscape. Other than Ground-Floor Transparency, there are no standards mentioned (or easily found) to promote pedestrian use, for instance, benches, trash receptacles, bike racks. There is hardly an emphasis on safety and attractiveness as there are few standards prescribed for either, for instance, lighting, building overhangs, planting/street trees, building signage, building style. Again mentioned in the Design Standards Intention, to create and maintainvisual quality and appearance that will be appealing, yet provides little concept or standard of that. It goes on further about high standards with respect to materials, details and appearance, while providing no details, no appearance concepts, merely a broad list of materials. The intent of Fargos LDC seems to be oriented toward successful urban planning, but lacking in follow-through as the standards are nowhere near descriptive enough nor inclusive of all pertinent elements.

Conclusion

Does the LDC used as a regularity method of zoning help create successful urban spaces? Can you successfully dive into a pool with no water? Functionally, yes. Practically, no. The city of Fargo as manifested from its LDC has become just that; functionally the city operates, but practically, it has little to offer as a successful urban space. So, in this case, no the LDC does not help in successful urban design, however, that is not to say that it is incapable of doing so.

Regulatory Methods:
Objective

Form-Based Regulations
Impacts on Urban Design
Analyze a block of Lake Zurich using an inventory of its Formbased Regulations to determine if the desired effect of an urban planner as well as intention stated in the regulating plan is met in a straightforward and legible manner, using a set of urban design criteria and the objective sense of the ease in doing so.

Inventory Form District Form Description

Block C intent for this block is to create residential presence on Breezewald Park, to create a mixed-use environment on Main Street reflected in a diverse streetscape composed of multi-story buildings with retail on the ground floor and either residential or office above. [] create a very diverse mixed-use, and possibly mixed-building, typology on Old Rand Road with a mix of residential and commercial uses on the ground floor (Equity Services Group, 8). A consistent, contextual, and complementary language of architectural massing and composition should be developed and applied throughout redevelopment of the Village. Composition and material standards should be most rigorously followed for those components of a building's exterior that are visible from the street (Equity Services Group, 28). Prescribed Uses:
Ground Floor Uses: Residential (Lakeview Place and Old Rand Road) and Commercial/Flex (Main Street and Old Rand Road). Access Lobbies on Main Street for Residential or office above: 15%. Upper Floor Uses: Residential/Office/Lodging.

Form Architectural Standards Intent

Urban Design Components

Building Standards:

Sector 1: Building Height: 4 Stories max. Site Coverage: 3-Story 50% max of site area. 4-3-Story + Penthouse 40% max. Sector 2: Building Height: 3 Stories maximum. Site Coverage: 3-Story no limit .

Urban Design Components (continued)

Large buildings present appearance of multiple facades. Single facade on Primary Frontage 4090ft in length. Single facade on Secondary Frontage 40-75ft in length. Change in building height along frontage every <170ft on Primary, <90ft on Secondary. Further standards listed.

Building Materials:

Required on all building facades (brick, stone, cast stone, precast, stucco, metal, fiber cement siding, wood siding, and materials of similar quality). Max two materials and/or colors chosen as principal cladding/finish on facade composition. Additional materials/colors introduced to complement and accent the composition. Further standards listed. Primary Frontage (at Main, Lakeview, and Old Rand Road) 1 setback. Portion of building facade required built to Build-to Line 80% min. Secondary Frontage (at Lakeview Place) 12 setback. Portion of building faade required built to Build-to Line 60% min.

Setback Limits:

Sidewalk Dimensions: Sidewalk Treatment:

Specified in sections. Entries barrier free, ground plane scored concrete or pavers from curb to face of building, 6ft furnishing zone established, cafe seating special use permit, street trees planted in tree pits with tree grates, on primary frontages a 5ft clear pedestrian throughway maintained. Further standards listed. type a: On Street Parking 8' Both Sides type c: On Street Parking 8' One Sides Surface parking screened from adjacent users and streets with wall, fencing or evergreen hedges. One shade tree planted within the lot for every six parking spaces provided.

Parking Standards:

Lighting Standards:

Black powder coated finish, comprised of specified and approved ornamental poles and fixtures, 12-14 in height, equipped for hanging festival banners and planting baskets, street lights should be located in the tree box zone. On primary frontages, tree grates employed, where not employed, flowering plants in tree boxes in addition to trees. Commercial and residential frontage may utilize movable planters of varying sizes. Preferences in plant selection given to drought resistant native species.

Planting Standards:

Urban Design Components (continued)

Site Furniture:

Street benches, not more than 6 feet in length, along sidewalks is encouraged. Bicycle racks along sidewalks encouraged. Signage: Marquee Signs, Blade Signs, Wall Signs, and temporary and pre-approved A-Type signs less than 42", Individual backlit letters. Maximum sizes listed. Awnings above commercial uses, metal structure covered with fabric, may include logos and text and shall not be backlit with headroom of >6-5 ft.

Source: Village of Lake Zurich Form Based Regulations (1-36) Analysis Lake Zurich Code

Lake Zurichs Form Based Regulations by attribute of its drafters is easy to navigate and fairly easy to comprehend (although some information is complex and/or hard to find due to listing vs. diagrams), it provides written and illustrative details for planners, its standards seem to meet the intentions it describes, and it seems to stipulate a pleasant urban experience through continuity prescriptions (urban design criteria such as planting, lighting, and site furniture, as well as architectural standards). Lake Zurichs Form Based Regulations describes the intention of Block C to create a very diverse mixed-use, and possibly mixedbuilding, typology on Old Rand Road with a mix of residential and commercial uses on the ground floor. Its zoning clearly prescribes for this with ground floor uses of Residential and Commercial/Flex and upper floor uses of Residential, Office, and Lodging, as well as regulation for building facades to change at certain lengths and a change along frontage height. Its Architectural Standards go on further with intention for a consistent, contextual, and complementary language of architectural massing and composition. Its faade requirements achieve this as well as its Architectural and Frontage Standards, which include building materials and frontage measurements. However, it was peculiar not to find Landscape or Open Space Standards mentioned in the intention statements. Oddly, the intent of Lake Zurichs Regulations is lacking, with no mention of pedestrian use or other such goals. However, its follow-through seems to be oriented toward successful urban design.

Conclusion

Does the Form Based Regulation used as a regularity method of zoning help create successful urban spaces? It would seem so.

Regulatory Methods:

An Informal Conclusion Of
Impacts on Urban Design

Further Questions

Certain elements of both still perplex me. For instance, neither prescribes specific site furniture. For example, many Homeowners Associations prescribe a specific mailbox that is required for continuity purposes. I would expect a statement of such in each code (ex. benches every such and such feet; the list of benches that may be used is provided by the city). I would expect this statement for tree types, tree grates, trash receptacles, street lighting fixtures, etc. Neither (that I know of) provides assessment of land use or prescriptions in an analytical environmental impact approach. More broadly, neither gives notion or reference to the planning process or desired planning goals to be achieved. The point of doing is to achieve a goal; even if it is merely to evade boredom, there is always a goal. Overall, both lack reasoning for many choices made and seemed to lack an ecological, engineering, and landscape architecture insight.

Overall Conclusion

Both specific zoning codes, Fargos LCD and Lake Zurichs Form Based, seem to be lacking certain information or articulated it poorly, they are lacking in coherence and clarity. It is in my estimation that if making an assessment on these regulatory methods, it is entirely unfair and negligent to do so with such a limited scope. With that in mind: Conventional Zoning such as Fort Collins Land Use Code does provide answers to urban design criteria in a legible, comprehendible, fairly simple to navigate way, and lends itself helpful to good urban design. However, in my estimation, Form-Based, in its nature of articulating physical form, may overall, provide a better regulatory method of Urban Design, while Conventional Zoning may be adjusted as a tool of Urban Planning; whereby just as Urban Design is the step following Urban Planning, Form-Based Code could be the step succeeding Conventional Zoning. How is urban theory addressed in Regulatory Methods? For instance, neither code analyzed addresses Transit Oriented Development or suburban sprawl. Perhaps they may to a degree deal with these issues, but neither was brought up directly.

Remaining Inquiry

Bibliography

Benninger, Charles. Principles of Intelligent Urbanism. Ekistics. Volume 69, Number 412. 2001. 39 65. City of Fargo. "Ch 20:Land Development Code. Fargo Municipal Code. 2009. 1-213. Equity Services Group, LLC, Torti, Gallas and Partners. Village of Lake Zurich: Form Based Regulations. 2008. 1-36. San Diego City Council. The City of San Diego General Plan: Urban Design Element. 2006. 1.

NOTE: I believe this paper achieves the requirements of the assignment, but is overall formatted to articulate my comprehension on the subject matter. Granted this is an opinion paper, please correct me if any of my information or assumptions posed in my paper are incorrect.