30 PLnnln^ January 2006

ZoningItv Dtivid II. l l u d o n . wcv

How to win friends and influence people witb a combination of form-based coding and use standards.

A city council vote in early September gavethe city of Leander, Texas, what could be rhenations first comprehensive composite zoningordinance. Using a format resurrected from theearliest zoning codes m the U.S..composite zon-ing ofters a flexihle, simplified, and innovativemethod for integrating form-based standardslnro a traditional Euchdian framework. Mostimportant, ir has rhe porential co create pedes-rrian-orienred, mixed use neighborhoods evenin a suhurhan setring.

Leander is a burgeoning satellite city withabout 20,000 residents, located northwest ofAustin. The area was mainly rural when rhe citywas incorporated in 1978. Today, it's a typicalbedroom community, alheit a rapidly growingone. With growxh comes rhe promise oi new em-ployment opportunities; shopping, dining, andhousing alternatives; and transportation options,including a new commurcr rail line anchoring arransit-onented developmenr disrricr.

At the same time, there has been concernabour potential negative growth impacts relatedro incomparible land uses. Some residentsworried chat the city's zoning ordinance anddevelopmenr srandards were nor up to the taskofenabling healthy growth. Over rhe years, rheissue rhreatened ro divide the community.

Like most zoning codes, Leander's ordi-nance included a compilation of use districts.As problems were encountered with land-useincompatibilities, more districts were added.Uses were more strictly defined and limited.The result was to make some properties lessmarketable. Over rime, overlay districrs, special-use permirs, planned unir developmenrs, andsome very limited torm standards were added.Bur rhe new layers made the ordinance morecomplicated, more inconsisrenr, and more dif-ficulr to navigate.

A major problem was the ordinance's lack

of flexibility when ir came ro uses. There wereseven commercial use districts, some of whichwere narrowlydefined. This tended rolimir rhemarker ior commercial property. Even addinga drive-through service lane ro a donur shopcould requireachangetoa more permissive usedistrict. Requestinga change ro a more inrensecommercial districr could reduce predicrahiHtyby adding an extra layer of permirred uses.

Our problem was how ro make our zoningmore predictable while increasing land-useflexibility ro increase marketability. How couldwe both narrow and broaden the scope of ourland-usecontrois? How could we accommodate.seemingly conrradicrory goals?

Our solutionSearching for an answer, we came up wirh rheidea of composite zoning. Rather rhan havingzoning disrricrs with jusr one componenr,a lisr ot uses, we include three separate andindependent components describing use,site, and archirecrural characteristics. Thecomponents may be combined ro creare acomposite zoning district. (The reader shouldnot confuse a composite zoning ordinance wirha composire zoning map prepared ior mulriplejurisdictions.)

Like a restaurant thar allows us to choose amain course, soup, and salad, composire zoningallows us ro choose use, sire, and architecturalcomponents separately We can then addressthe three fundamental componenrs of land usewirhin a single zoning district. Thar in rurnallows decision makers to determine the con-textual appro priatene.s.s of each componenr.

The result is a much more predictable endproducr, and one that offers more flexibility.We were able ro reduce rhe number of usecomponenrs because rhey no longer had rodisringuish between a variety of site and archi-

tectural conditions. This expanded the marketior nonresidentia! property.

Form standards have a major influence onwhether a developmenr is compatible with irssurroundings. Combining site and architecturalcomponenrs wirh use componenrs allows us roemphasize form standards, an iinporrant parroi the land-use equation.

Moreover, with a variety oi componenrs roselecr from, form srandards may he varied ac-cording ro whar is appropriare for rhe site and irsconrexr. "Ihis gives planners and decision makersa key rod, allowing them ro ensure that a projectwill have rhe desired visual and physical impactm a particular location. No longer do we haveto settle for the lowest common denominatorof sire and architectural srandards.

The coiiiponcnlKLeander'scomposirezoningordinance applies tothe parrs ofthe city not covered by the rransit-oriented development district standards. Ournew use componenrs are fairly typical but havebeen reduced in number and do not address sireor archirecrurai condirions.

The ordinance provides for five types of sirecomponents, categorized according to inren-sity of sire use. Generally srated, Type 1, rheleast inrensive, includes srandards for residen-rially compatible deveiopment and additionallandscaping. Type 2 is less restrictive and per-mirs somewhat larger scale buildings and drive-rhrough service lanes. Type 3 allows more in-rensive uses such as auto-rclared businesses andlimired ourdoor display and storage. Types 4and 5 permit increasing intensities of outdoorstorage, display, and orher sire uses.

When combined with residential use compo-nenrs, rhe sire componenrs dererminewherheraccessory dwellings are permirred, how largeaccessory srructures can be, whether rear access

Aiiitricjn I'ldniiiiig Asv)i;ia[ic)ii 31

garages are required, and whether mansion-style, multifamily standards apply.

Archirecrural components are similarlyorganized, from lype A, rhe mosr srringenr("85 percenr of exrerior wall area is required tobe comprised of specified masonry"), to TypeD ("permirs metal walls not facing a street andrequires fewer archirectural features"). Only[ypes A and B may he combined with residentialuse components. Type D may be comhined onlywith the heaviest commercial and industrialdisrricrs.

1 he philosophy behind Leander Is new code isinfluenced by new urbanist thinking. Thus thecode enahles a mixture of uses in a more finelygrained partern than is generally called for hyconremporary standards.

By allowing pkmners ro use diffcrenr formstandards in different situations, compositezoning offers rhe porenrial for encouragingdeveiopmenr patterns that promote walking,hiking, and civic acriviries.

An advantage of composite zoning is that itdoes nor rhrow our rhe familiar Euclidian zoningcode. Ir offers an effective format for integratingland-use components with hoth traditional andcontempoiary development standards.

The process of creating a composite zoningdistrict is like creating a planned unit develop-ment from component parts. The parts are clearlydefined, require no new drafting of srandards,and are limited in number. They can be easilyintegrated into the vocabulary of planners,developers, decision makers, building officials,and inspectors. Also, as in a PUD. rhe optionsavailable by combining different componentsare so numerous rhar rhey can be applied to fittht'specijl circumstances ofrhesiteandro meetthe particular needs of a developer.

Thus we create greater use flexibility as well asmore predictability for developmenr srandards,all in a format rhar allows form srandards ro bevaried based on conrext. This is accomplishedby a fundiimenral change in the structure of ourzoning districts, which allows us to better defineland-use elements and to independently selectand combine various componenr options.

Composire zoning is nor a new construct.The original zoning ordinance for the village ofEuclid, Ohio (as in Euclidv. A?ni?ier) includedsix use districts, three height districts, and fourarea districts. A single tract could be zonedwith one of each, creating a composite zoningdistrict. The Euclid ordinance was resred andfound valid in the 1926 Supreme Court decisionthar estahlished rhe constirutional fooring forzoning in this country. Even under conservativeTexas laws, our city attorney felt comfortablewith this zoning formar.

Coinposile Zoning

The top two photos show two possiblecombinations of site and architecturetypes for buildings in an area zoned asgeneral commercial. The bottom twoshow combinations for areas zoned aslight industrial.

LI-2-D

The morning after rhe vore, I was greeted by abox of donurs and a wistful plea from a srail̂ ^mem-ber. "Maybe now we can have a donut shop," shesaid. And with our new standards, why nor?

David Hiitron is the senior planner ttir iheCity of lx.'an-der and aiitlior ot the compo.sitc zoning ordinance.

It <• s n II r (• e s

Practicing Planner. A longer version ofrhis arricle will appear In rhe spring issueof AICPs online publication. PracticingPlanner.