Planning — February 2012

Going Hybrid

How one city overhauled its zoning code while combining form-based and conventional elements.

By Roger E. Eastman, AICP, with Daniel Parolek and Lisa Wise

Flagstaff, Arizona, entered an exclusive club in November. It is now one of the few cities in the U.S. that have adopted a hybrid zoning ordinance with both form-based components and conventional Euclidean elements as part of a complete code rewrite. "Simplified, streamlined, predictable" raved an editorial in the Arizona Daily Sun while praising both the code and the process used to adopt it. Getting the new code adopted wasn't easy, but many city residents think the effort will be repaid in a more efficient, more equitable, and easier-to-use zoning system. The adoption of the new zoning code also caps off a successful public engagement process that has changed the generally negative perception of city planners.

Time for an update

An important first step in approaching a new code was differentiating between what Christopher Leinberger calls "walkable urban" areas from "drivable suburban" areas (The Option of Urbanism, Island Press, 2008). By making this distinction, Flagstaff could apply a form-based code in the walkable areas of the city while generally leaving the existing conventional code in place in the drivable suburban areas.

Thus, a new transect-based hybrid code resulted that defaults to promoting and allowing for walkable urbanism while seamlessly incorporating refined yet otherwise conventional Euclidean zoning tools for the drivable suburban areas. Because the regulations for the two different types of areas are not muddled together, the form-based code could be kept intact — and development opportunities could emerge in a manner consistent with the city's general plan.

Flagstaff (pop. 62,000), at an elevation of about 7,000 feet, is the regional hub of northern Arizona. Established as a stop on the early transcontinental railway in 1882 and later Route 66 and Interstate 40, Flagstaff quickly grew as a logging and ranching town, and as a gateway for tourists visiting the Grand Canyon and other national parks and monuments. Residents appreciate the natural beauty of the area and enjoy outdoor pursuits such as hiking, skiing, hunting, fishing, and camping.

The downtown and oldest neighborhoods were planned with small blocks and lots, and today are valued for their historic buildings and inherently walkable urban character. Typical of many American cities, Flagstaff's urban form changed after World War II as auto-oriented suburban developments were added to the periphery of the city. Until recently Flagstaff's zoning ordinances have actively promoted these driveable suburban development patterns.

The need for a comprehensive update of the city's land development code had been apparent for some time as developers, contractors, design professionals, and residents complained about the code's complexity and inconsistency. Some even blamed the cumbersome nature of the code for contributing to the high cost of development and the failure of big projects and economic development opportunities.

These issues stemmed from piecemeal amendments over the years that reflected numerous, sometimes conflicting zoning methodologies, such as Euclidian zoning provisions dating back to the 1970s and earlier; complex performance-based standards added in 1991 to protect floodplains, steep slopes, and trees, especially the native ponderosa pines; design guidelines adopted in 2002; and traditional neighborhood standards based on the SmartCode developed by consultants Duany Plater-Zyberk and adopted by the city in November 2007.

While the land development code protected resources, it failed to produce the type of urban form intended in the general plan, first adopted in 2001 and now being completely rewritten. Like many codes, this one applied the same suburban parking, landscaping, and urban form regulations to both suburban and urban areas, leading over time to a decline of the walkable, historic core and other historic neighborhoods. In the suburban areas, the code was criticized for allowing "sprawl with trees," because individual trees were protected but healthy forests and wildlife corridors often were not.

To update the code, the city council allocated $500,000 over three budget cycles (later reduced to about $460,000) for consultants. In July 2008, a request for proposals was released nationally, and, following a comprehensive interview process of nine firms, the council in January 2009 awarded a contract to Opticos Design Inc. and its supporting team of consultants (Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., Sherwood Design Engineers, and Hall Planning and Engineering).

Analyzing the DNA

Considerable time was taken in analyzing the land development code's 34 conventional and performance-based zones to see if they could be combined. At the same time, a comprehensive macro-scale and micro-scale analysis of the city was prepared so that the city's urban form and character (its DNA) could be better understood.

A macro-scale analysis (citywide neighborhoods, districts, and corridors) enabled the team to determine focus areas where walkable urbanism should be reinforced or allowed. This analysis helped the team work with the community to determine the form-based code focus area, which was the main concern of a visioning charrette. The focus area includes the historic downtown and surrounding neighborhoods, which provide the architectural vernacular and DNA that Flagstaff's residents and visitors value. The macro-scale analysis also became a valuable tool to discuss the future framework of the city within the regional planning process that was also in progress.

Once the focus area was established, a detailed micro-scale analysis was completed by city staff and volunteers. The aim was to gain a more fine-grained understanding of the selected area and to calibrate the urban-to-rural transect for Flagstaff.

This review and analysis led to the determination that the new code would be a hybrid one using the structure of a form-based code as the framework while seamlessly incorporating conventional Euclidean zoning tools. One of the challenges was to determine if the supplemental regulations, which apply to the conventional zoning areas, would also need to apply to the form-based code areas.

A thorough assessment of the supplemental standards such as parking, lighting, landscaping, and specific uses was completed to ensure that that they would not compromise the form-based code. It was found that many of these standards are effective in suburban areas but are less applicable in existing or intended urban areas where form-based codes would apply.

Using a NEW code framework

Considerable thought went into creating a new table of contents for a hybrid code that carefully wove together the two systems of zoning germane to Flagstaff. To achieve this goal, the table of contents uses a form-based code framework with certain components (as defined by the Form-Based Codes Institute) defining the primary sections of the document. This organization is what makes the Flagstaff hybrid code so different. Unlike other hybrid approaches in which the FBC is an exception within an otherwise conventional zoning code framework, the Flagstaff code defaults to walkable urbanism and makes drivable suburban development the exception. It is also structured from the broad to the specific, as explained in the table above.

Because of the hybrid form of the code, Chapter 10-50, Supplemental to Zones, took special attention. Each of the regulations in this section were carefully studied and it was determined whether they would apply just to the transect zone areas, just the non-transect zone areas, or both to ensure these standards did not compromise the FBC intent.

The urban-to-rural transect was the organizing principle chosen for the FBC, with T6 being the highest zone that applies to the downtown core. Due to the complexities of applying the transect zones to both existing developed areas and greenfield development, the T3 and T4 transect zones are broken down into T3N.1, T3N.2, T4N.1, and T4N.2.

The T3N.1 and T4N.1 designations apply primarily to existing areas, the T3N.2 and T4N.2 to new neighborhoods. In addition, an "open" classification was added to some transect zones, for example T4N.2-O, to define the areas where the same physical form was intended in a T4N.2 zone, but where a more open or flexible range of uses are allowed.

This definition is appropriate in areas where mixed use main streets transition into neighborhoods. In this application, primarily because of Arizona's Proposition 207 (see sidebar), the transect zones are overlay zones, and their application is optional only within the form-based code focus area, as identified on the zoning map. The Traditional Neighborhood Community Plan Division encourages further application of the FBC for greenfield and infill sites larger than 10 acres.

Engaging the community

A hallmark of the project was the reversal of the prevailing attitude of distrust created during the 1991 update of the land development code, when residents complained about insufficient outreach or citizen involvement. The city embarked on an extensive community engagement program that included education and numerous, diverse, and substantive opportunities for the community to provide input. City planning staff was responsible for nearly all of the public outreach and educational efforts (the consultant team managed the design charrette and participated at key milestones). In total, staff hosted and attended more than 320 meetings and events.

The city got it right. A comment provided by a local realtor sums up the success of the public engagement effort: "I was involved with the revisions to the LDC in 1991. That process was heavy handed ... and bitterness lingers to this day. I was skeptical when the current project began, but this has been completely the opposite, with countless hours spent by planning staff reaching out and attending meetings with citizens and groups of citizens. A much better document has resulted."

Even before the project began, city staff had committed to educating interested residents and elected officials on form-based codes, transects zones, and current zoning approaches, establishing a common language and a foundation for a complicated planning effort.

As the project moved forward, the project team included 60 community members (appointed and elected officials, city staff, and others) and managed 11 different citizen focus groups to review specific elements of the LDC and provide direction and suggestions.

A major milestone for the project was a five-day design charrette, the basis for the form-based component of the new zoning code. More than 440 people attended 10 different meetings and the open studio during that week. Dan Parolek, a founding principal of Opticos Design and a contributor to this article, was initially concerned about how the focus groups and individual interests would fit the charrette process, but he later said that "city staff did a brilliant job managing these groups and getting clear direction and support from them."

The staff hosted numerous meetings throughout the project, including educational forums and chapter-by-chapter reviews of the draft. Similar educational sessions were held after the code was adopted. A critical aspect of the outreach effort was staff's attendance at monthly meetings of community groups and organizations such as local realtors, contractors, environmentalists, and the business community, as well as council and city board and commission meetings, and community events.

Other outreach strategies included the development of a simple logo and brand to establish project identity; a webpage; e-newsletters sent to over 5,000 recipients; extensive use of local media, radio interviews, and announcements; free online community bulletin boards; and a free community announcement in pre-movie screenings at local movie theaters. For its outreach efforts, the city won the 2011 Arizona Planning Association's Public Participation Award.

Flagstaff's new zoning code integrates two different zoning systems with up-to-date standards and procedures while coping with the limitations placed on Arizona cities by Proposition 207 (passed in November 2006). The code also includes nationally recognized best practices for sustainable development. A brief overview of some innovations is presented in the table below.

What we learned

In January 2009, as the nation's economic recession was worsening, the city council decided to continue moving forward on the project rather than reallocating funds for other needs. This difficult decision was justified by the realization that a new zoning code would bring long-term economic benefits to the city.

It is gratifying to realize now that the council was right. In the weeks before the new code's effective date (December 5, 2011), two applicants submitted small residential infill projects for conceptual review, while a third was considering a small mixed use project. All would be reviewed and approved under the new form-based code standards in the T4N.1 transect zone because it offers incentives and advantages not available under the non-transect zone standards.

This complex project taught us many lessons:

• Land-use tables must be different for form-based and transect zones versus conventional zones; the form-based code should be simplified and include some carrots.
• City staff used the SmartCode as a valuable starting point when developing the preexisting Traditional Neighborhood District. Rather than starting over, the consulting team thoughtfully used and modified it to apply it to the complexities of a citywide code. This approach saved a lot of time and helped stretch limited resources.
• It is important to get clear policy direction from elected officials before drafting the code.
• Design guidelines (for building and site planning) are less critical and perhaps unnecessary within areas effectively regulated with form-based codes.

And finally, it is invaluable to train staff in the form-based code approach before starting to overhaul an existing code. In Flagstaff all of the planners, some engineers, and even the city attorney received training from the Form-based Code Institute.

Roger E. Eastman is Flagstaff's Zoning Code Administrator and the project manager for the city's zoning rewrite. Daniel Parolek is a cofounder and principal of Opticos Design Inc., and Lisa Wise is a cofounder and principal with Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.

Resources

Images: Top — Rather than make the form-based code an exception to an otherwise conventional zoning framework, Flagstaff's hybrid approach is structured around the form-based code. Pictured is a rural area (T2). Photo Keji Iwai Photography, www.kejiiwai.com. Middle —As part of the code rewrite, Flagstaff undertook a citywide analysis of developed and constrained land. Large areas in white are ares where future development is possible. Source: Land Development Code Rewrite, City of Flagstaff, Arizona. Opticos Design Inc., Lisa Wise Consulting. ©OPTICOS DESIGNS, INC. Bottom — A bike commuter at a popular Flagstaff coffee shop. Photo Keji Iwai Photography, www.kejiiwai.com.

From APA. A session highlighting the Flagstaff case study and other hybrid codes, entitled "Going Hybrid: Effectively Combining Form-Based and Conventional Code Elements in a Citywide Code," will be presented at the APA National Planning Conference in Los Angeles on April 16.

Flagstaff and beyond. For more information on Flagstaff Zoning Code, visit www.flagstaff.az.gov/zoningcode. Contact Roger Eastman at reastman@flagstaffaz.gov. The Form-based Code Institute is at www.formbasedcodes.org.

Reading. A thorough overview of micro-scale analysis can be found in Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers, by Daniel G. Parolek, Karen Parolek, and Paul C. Crawford, FAICP; Wiley, 2008.