Here are reader questions answered by David Rouse, Nancy Zobl, and Graciela Caviccchia, of Wallace, Roberts, & Todd, the authors of Zoning News articles on the topic "Beyond Euclid: Integrating Zoning and Physical Design."

Question from David Fuller, AICP, Myrtle Beach Planning Department:
Thank you for beginning a discussion that I have been thinking about for awhile. I am one of the unfortunates trying to shoehorn a TND-type ordinance into a conventional zoning ordinance. It is neither easy nor pretty.

As I consider this topic, I like to review John Reps's Requiem for Zoning, although I end up wishing he had said more on the subject.

I wish APA would extend its Growing Smart research to investigate alternatives to zoning or at least variations within zoning that can address design issues. One possible method might be the specific plan that is available to California communities. Do you see this as a useful technique?

Another technique that I would like to learn more about is used in New York City. I have read a couple of things by Jonathan Barnett explaining these design regulations within a zoning ordinance, but I don't have an understanding of how his height limit and build-to requirements fit in with other dimensional regulations or more (building) specific design guidelines of the zoning ordinance.

The new technologies to help us visualize and analyze zoning/design issues are exciting. (I recommend http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/landuse/tools.shtml for a good review of several, including at least one that your articles mentioned.) I would also be interested in less technological methods. Vision preference surveys and charrettes come to mind, but I wonder what other low-tech methods are being used that help planners and citizens grasp the implications of their land-use decisions.

The authors respond:
Thank you for your insightful questions regarding our articles.

In response to your first question, whether the specific plan concept as applied in California is a useful technique for integrating design regulations into zoning codes, our opinion is that it depends on how it is applied. The California state enabling legislation for specific plans is quite flexible, allowing communities to create standards ranging from land-use and design regulations to regulations incorporating infrastructure plans, development approval processes, and a capital improvement program. The concept of the specific plan as it relates to the premise of our article is a good one because it allows design regulations to be applied in a way that responds to the diverse characteristics of the whole community (as opposed to a TND, which applies one design concept to limited areas) and it is legally tied to the General Plan. The limitation lies in the fact that the legal impetus for implementing the plan is tied to the state enabling legislation, which of course is only available to California communities. Also, the statute requires extensive submissions of data and analysis, which puts a heavy burden of cost and time on the municipality.

Regarding the availability of low-tech tools that help planners and citizens envision the implications of land-use regulation, we believe that vision preference surveys and charettes are very useful exercises to help the audience find the vision of the place based on local values. However, these exercises many times fail to relate to the many legal implications of making that vision reality. Planners can illustrate this relationship in a low-tech manner, that is, without the use of complex and expensive modeling systems, as long as their staff includes persons with the physical planning and urban design skills to do so. Although it is a very time-consuming task, planners already have at their disposal, assuming the personnel skills are in place, the ability to manually illustrate the impact of zoning regulations on a community based on a variety of conditions. These conditions may include 2D or 3D scenarios of build-out under current and proposed zoning changes or alternatives of how a place can be affected by different market forces. Helping a community to find the vision of its place is as critical as teaching the physical, economic, and legal implications of creating that vision and is worth the time and effort.

I hope we have answered your questions sufficiently. Again, thank you for your interest.

Question from Troy Galloway, AICP, City of Bentonville, Arkansas, Director of Planning:
I am director of planning for the City of Bentonville, Arkansas, a rapidly growing city of 20,000 that has outgrown the usefulness of its existing zoning code developed in the late 1960s. Having just completed a new comprehensive plan, we now intend to totally rewrite our zoning code and subdivision regulations. I am a proponent of smart growth and smart growth principles. My question is, What primary tasks should we key in on in creating a code that more closely addresses smart growth and serves as a deterrent to sprawl? Should we have separate documents for "Smart Growth or TND" and one separate that favors a more "Sprawl Oriented," or is it possible to incorporate Smart Growth and TND principles into a standard "Euclidean" zoning document? Any input and direction to good examples are greatly appreciated.

The authors respond:
In response to your question regarding whether you should have separate documents for Smart Growth or TND, our opinion is that it is best to integrate special design regulations into one document. Although it is the conventional practice to have separate design regulations, as we mentioned in the article, separate regulations such as TND districts are limited in their ability to address varying development characteristics throughout the community.

Since you are intending to totally rewrite your ordinance, you may want to investigate comprehensive approaches to zoning and design such as the Form District concept that is now being developed in Louisville/Jefferson County. While the Louisville/Jefferson County approach involves overlaying the design regulations on top of the existing zoning districts, we recommend a more efficient approach, that is, to use form districts based on the land-use pattern consistent with your comprehensive plan as the regulatory foundation.

For example, rather than using base zoning districts that narrowly focus on use and density, you may want to develop districts that are tailored to the form and character of different sections of the community, such as Town Center, Traditional Neighborhood Residential, or Campus. You may not even need to make drastic changes to the permitted uses in your current ordinance. The significant changes would be adding design standards that are appropriate to the character of various sections of the community.

You may also want to add regulations that deal with natural resource protection to provide consistent, cohesive Smart Growth regulations in one document. Of course, it is worthwhile to investigate the use Planning Support Systems to ensure that your zoning code will be comprehensively adapted to the needs of your community.

For more information on Form Districts, visit the Louisville/Jefferson County Cornerstone 2020 Plan at www.co.jefferson.ky.us/PlanDev/OtherCornerstone.html. A good reference for smart growth codes is the Maryland's Smart Code site at: http://www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth/smartcode/smartcode00.htm.
For more information on planning support systems and other land-use tools, please visit:
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/landuse/tools.shtml.