Zoning Plan Review

 

The Policies That Attempt to Lead the Cities We Build

Comprehensive Zoning Plan, Skopje, N. Macedonia, from Wikipedia

Zoning plan review precedes building permit review. It determines compliance with the activity proposed for the zone involved, the site plan detail submitted, and the building height requested before the technical characteristics of construction are examined;
but it follows no prescribed pattern because zoning regulations are not only independent but often scattered throughout the chapters of its ordinance. The sum of these independent requirements and locations inevitably defeats the correlation needed to achieve consistent leadership objectives on limited land areas. Design results depend on a long series of interrelated decisions that abhor leadership contradictions. For instance, permitting mid-rise building heights with surfaced parking requirements only builds exaggerated expectations, frustration, and elimination of unpaved open space.

The shaded cells in Table 1 indicate the pivotal zoning topics that require correlation for the G1 Building Design Category. This category includes all buildings with surface parking around but not under the building on the same premise. If you have read my previous essays you have read about the other building design categories and related forecast models that classify the scope of shelter options available.

It is also possible to use the format of these models as a zoning plan review standard that correlates these pivotal topics to establish leadership parameters for all ensuing site planning and building design decisions. The shaded cells in Table 1 identify these topics for the G1 building design category. It may be occupied by any activity acceptable to the zoning district involved and depends on the given gross land area in cell G3.  

Table 1 could be used as an application form for completion by an applicant and consideration by a zoning plan review specialist, or as a worksheet for completion by the specialist. A single square foot entry is expected in each shaded cell of Table 1, except for the range of floor quantity options that can be entered in cells A44-A53 for comparison and evaluation.

The embedded math in Table 1 correlates the values entered in its shaded cells to produce Table 2. The maximum gross building area alternatives forecast in cells B44-B53 reflect the options associated with the values entered. The values entered are simply examples for this discussion. If the maximum floor quantity permitted in the zone is 3, the maximum gross building area permitted would be the 22,226 sq. ft. as shown in cell B46. A larger gross building area would require a modification to one or more of the design specification values entered in the shaded cells of the Land and Core Modules of the predictive model or a request for variance approval.

The area values entered in cells G3-G6, G8, G13, and G14 of the Table 2 Land Module will vary with the site plan submitted. The correct information, however, is critical to the success of any project because it is used to identify the buildable land area remaining and the unbuildable land area that must be protected.

For the purposes of this example, the area entered in G11 must produce a percentage in cell F11 greater than or equal to 40% unpaved open space. This means that the capacity of the storm sewer present or planned must be equal to the runoff discharge from no more than 60% project impervious cover unless storm water retention or detention systems are installed. (In single family residential areas the impervious cover design standard for a storm sewer is often 30%. This means that 70% unpaved open space is expected. When this is consistently exceeded for whatever reason, flooding becomes an increasing risk in areas where there is a mismatch between the sewer capacity constructed and the total impervious cover permitted.) It is imperative, therefore, that a city records and maps the runoff capacity for every storm sewer in its jurisdiction, since the remainder determines the baseline unpaved open space percentage required -- in the absence of more sophisticated storm water retention and detention design. This, however, puts the entire burden of unpaved open space provision on the storm sewer capacity percentage, and it may not be adequate to relieve the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance proposed, since this is not its purpose.

All shaded cell values in cells G23-G28 are discretionary, except for the loading area requirements in cells G27 and G28. The value in G27 is generally specified in a zoning ordinance but the value in G28 can be discretionary.

The value in cell A36 is a city parking requirement assumed for this example. Parking requirements often become a source of disagreement because they have a great impact on the gross building area that can be constructed, particularly when the G1 and G2 Building Design Categories are involved.

The value in cell A35 is generally a discretionary value for the parking lot area provided per parking space. It is equal to the entire parking space, aisle, and circulation area divided by the number of parking spaces provided, but does not include access roads/drives with no adjacent parking spaces. A value less than 400 can indicate an increasingly unworkable parking lot design. It can occur when a designer seeks to maximize the number of parking spaces provided to justify a larger gross building area at the expense of maneuverability and unpaved open space. A value greater than 400 can indicate increasing landscape attention within the parking lot perimeter or more space wasted by the difficult geometry of the land area. The value calculated is significant because every surface parking space increases the gross building area that can be constructed; but expanding the parking lot within a limited core area reduces the remaining building footprint area. It is a balancing act in design that often sacrifices unpaved open space when it is not a specific requirement.

The floor quantity options in cell A44-A53 are generally limited by city regulations for a given zoning district. The options listed represent discretionary decisions up to and beyond that limit. Those beyond would involve a variance request. In this example I have chosen a three story limit. A city regulation, however, rarely discourages requests for variances when a builder/owner/developer seeks to improve the financial yield from a property. This is when shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance become issues that have previously been terms without mathematical definition.

Some of the most common site plan variance requests concern the parking requirement in cell A36 and the floor quantity limit just mentioned in cell A45. These two requirements significantly influence the gross building area that can be constructed on any G1 and G2 core land area. As a result, their limits often come under intense scrutiny.

I have not mentioned the unpaved open space percentage requirement in cell F11 as a frequent variance request because it is often overlooked as a requirement, even though it is a city’s first line of defense against flooding.  Zoning setback areas are often assumed to be yards that perform this function, but most zoning ordinances permit portions of these areas to be paved. I personally don’t believe that they were ever intended to protect a city’s storm water relief capacity. They establish building separation standards. If unpaved open space were commonly stipulated, I have no doubt that it would become a common variance request. The justification for the minimum requirement would begin by being based on storm sewer capacity; but the amount may not provide relief from the building capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance proposed since this is not its primary purpose. In a combined context, unpaved open space may become more defensible as it struggles to adequately reduce the physical intensity of building mass and pavement we live around and within.

The Implication Module in the Table 2 forecast model measures the shelter capacity, intensity, intrusion, and dominance implications of the values entered in the shaded cells of the model’s Land and Core Modules. At this time these Implication Module calculations are like the first blood pressure measurements. Leadership knowledge will accrue as measurements accumulate, evaluation begins, and conclusions are reached. At this point a diagnostic language will emerge with the leadership ability to prescribe minimum results that define the shelter capacity of land within limited geographic areas and more justifiable limits.

Shelter capacity is gross building area per buildable acre. A city that does not have an urban design plan for shelter capacity nor correlate the gross building area quantities requested with the occupant activity needed to produce average revenue per acre equal to or greater than its cost per acre will continue to struggle with its budget. In other words, a city depends on the revenue it receives from its inventory of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and occupant activity on the acres within its boundaries. The average revenue it receives per buildable acre must equal or exceed its annual expense per acre to deliver the quality of life it desires. An urban design plan is expected to define the combination of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and activity that will deliver the revenue needed from the acres available. Zoning plan review is expected to ensure that the land use compatibility envisioned by its master plan and the economic security envisioned by its urban design plan is enabled by the project plan under zoning review.

If an applicant is disappointed with the gross building area limit calculated for his/her application, the spreadsheet format of Table 2 permits him/her to explore the implications of discretionary value modifications and variance requests with the plan review specialist. This is possible because a change to one or more values entered in Table 2 will change the forecast and implications predicted. At this point, both can productively discuss these options. Confrontation can be converted to cooperation using the forecast model, but it may not eliminate variance requests from stipulated requirements when discretionary changes do not satisfy the applicant.  These requests will have less chance of approval, however, as knowledge accumulates and the correlated nature of their requirements is understood.

The calculation check in cell G21 should not be overlooked. All applications are expected to account for every square foot of site plan area involved. This is no more than common sense, but not necessarily a common summation since unpaved open space has not often been calculated. It has simply been the land left after building and pavement objectives have been satisfied.

I am not suggesting that a city discard its zoning concerns with health, safety, and compatibility, not to mention sign regulation, fence height, setback encroachments, swimming pool safeguards, and so on. I am simply suggesting that the topics mentioned in the Land and Core Modules of Tables 1 and 2, for the G1 Building Design Category, are those that influence the massing, intensity, intrusion, and dominance of the shelter capacity we build with little leadership direction and concern for the population and world around it. We have believed that land is a commodity and the currency of freedom -- rather than a gift and a source of life that must be protected for all species with the knowledge we must acquire.

CONCLUSION

I am repeating a conclusion I’ve written previously and will probably continue to do so.

“…I hope I have shown that it is entirely possible to mathematically correlate land consumption with gross building area capacity, activity, economic potential, and quality of life within limited geographic areas when the leadership topics for each building design category classification are comprehensively defined and correlated with the algorithms, value decisions, and master equations required. The goal is to constructively define a limited Built Domain without excessive and continuing reliance on annexation. I think we all understand at some level of comprehension that limits are required. It remains to define them with a language that can lead us to consistently positive results.

I have contributed the conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the conceptual, predictive, measurement, and evaluation format is based. I have also published over 190 essays regarding this topic on my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and posted the more recent on Linked-In. The blog has been visited by over 32,000 readers.

There is a lot of work to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Symbiotic survival is not an option. It is a mandate that will not be met until the habitat we build ceases to be a threat to ourselves and our source of life – the Natural Domain.”

Walter M. Hosack, January, 2023

Interpreting the Planet's Law of Limits

 It is no longer enough to attempt to protect the health, safety, and welfare of growing populations when growth is considered a goal without limits.

The microscopic presence causing sprawl across the face of the planet is an individual who needs shelter to survive. We understand increasing demand and limited supply but have left its resolution to a marketplace that does not understand the consequences of excessive consumption any better than a parasite recognizes that it must moderate consumption to become symbiotic. Neither understands the planet’s Law of Limits.

I have chosen shelter sprawl as a symbol for unrestricted growth since most of us are instinctively aware that excessive land consumption for shelter is a threat to our source of life, but ignore the fact that it is a function of population growth. This has led me to believe that we must learn to predict the shelter capacity of limited land areas before we can learn to protect growing populations from excessive intensity while respecting and preserving the planet’s Natural Domain.

For the purposes of this discussion, shelter is gross building area (GBA). It continues to be provided with approximations, random decisions and arbitrary rules of thumb that encourage the sprawl we pursue with abandon, annexation, and debate. The equations required to more accurately predict the capacity of land to provide shelter without excessive intensity within limited geographic areas has been the subject of my work.

Gross building area can be used to shelter any population activity. The gross building area per buildable acre provided is the shelter capacity utilized on the land area involved. The shelter capacity introduced determines the physical intensity; population capacity; psychological impact; economic potential; and environmental implications of the project planned or present. Proceeding without an accurate ability to calculate the implications of current and proposed shelter capacity decisions will simply continue attempts to treat sprawl without the knowledge and awareness needed for diagnosis and treatment.

When gross building area is occupied by human activity it produces revenue per sq. ft. and a plethora of demands that must be financed by the average revenue per acre produced. In many cases the project produces less than a city’s average cost per acre to provide the essential services needed. Resolving the imbalance by averaging this cost over its entire income stream becomes one of a city’s recurring challenges. At this point the definition of “essential” becomes a hot topic. The cause of the shortfall, if it is ever understood, becomes lost in the debate over budget cuts to essential services and potential annexation.

The problem begins because a city does not plan for quantities of gross building area per acre nor correlate these quantities with the occupant activity needed to produce revenue per acre equal to the quality of life desired within its corporate limits. In other words, a city depends on the revenue it receives from its inventory of land area, gross building area, and occupant activity. The average annual revenue received per buildable acre must equal or exceed its annual expense per acre. I’ve emphasized the word “average” because all revenue from shelter capacity and activity allocation is not equal. A government’s responsibility is to manage the average, and it cannot do this with the isolated tools, regulations, and information it has available.

The most obvious gap has been a city’s inability to accurately predict the combination of gross building area and occupant activity that can produce the average revenue per acre it needs to meet the expense per acre required to protect and improve its quality of life within its corporate limits. It will continue to randomly consume land with annexation in search of this elusive “balance” until it improves its forecasting ability.

The prediction of gross building area capacity and intensity options per buildable acre defines the scope of activity that can be accommodated and the population that can be sheltered per acre. The combination of shelter capacity, intensity, quality, location, and activity determines the revenue that can be expected from the acres allocated, and allocation of shelter capacity, intensity, and activity throughout a city plan determines its economic stability. This explanation should bring the meaning of “balance” into sharper focus since it requires more than the correlation of land use compatibility and appearance. Residential housing deserves special mention in this context. It is an activity subset of the shelter category and its preferred low density allocations can produce revenue deficits per buildable acre -- when compared to a city’s average expense per acre.

In all land use activity subsets, the shelter capacity of land must be limited by the intensity levels we can accept within land areas that are limited to protect our source of life and its many dependent species. This may come into better focus when we begin to measure and understand the shelter intensity levels that will not condemn our quality of life to the misery we see in many parts of the world. It means, however, that population growth is not an unlimited privilege. It requires shelter to survive, and shelter capacity has limits defined by acceptable intensity levels; but we have not been able to calculate these limits in consistently effective leadership terms. This is why I have focused on the derivation of equations and forecast models that can be used to measure and predict the shelter capacity and intensity options associated with any given land area. I will continue to ignore the political and religious implications of these shelter capacity and intensity predictions. They have discouraged me from writing this earlier.

Options imply decisions that require knowledge. The mathematical format of shelter capacity forecast models gives you the ability to build this knowledge with observation, measurement, and evaluation of existing conditions – if you choose to meet the challenge of limits we are expected to anticipate on a planet in a universe that does not compromise with the formula it has been given.

I have discussed the mechanics of shelter capacity forecasting in my blog and in the book I mention at the end of this discussion. I have also posted the more recent essays to Linked-In. I am repeating portions of the last two in an attempt to amplify the message above in as brief a form as I can manage.

 

EXCERPTS FROM “CONFRONTING SPRAWL with an ADEQUATE LANGUAGE” (with modifications)

“It may be a surprise to learn that there are only six shelter options available when classification is based on the parking solution employed rather than the style applied, and this makes shelter capacity prediction for limited land areas feasible. It also helps to recognize that: (1) shelter is simply gross building area that may be occupied by any activity when it conforms to local building code requirements; (2) shelter quantity for any and all activity is a function of the gross building area that is placed on a given land area; (3) gross building area per acre is shelter capacity; (4) shelter capacity can be increased with floor quantity options that are one of a number of initial design decisions that must be correlated; (5) shelter capacity options represent levels of measurable intensity; (6) current intensity levels are accidentally created with design stipulations that remain incomplete and uncorrelated; (7) intensity management with comprehensive, correlated design value decisions is needed to shelter growing populations within geographic limits prescribed to protect their quality and source of life; (8) intensity management topics apply to all buildings; and (9) the social activity within a building does not determine the physical intensity introduced but it may magnify the impact.

Building classification by style has distracted us from these fundamental observations for centuries. I’ve written about these six building design categories many times, and repeat them here simply as a reminder. They are: (1) G1 buildings with grade parking around, but not under, the building;(2) G2 buildings with grade parking around and under the building; (3) S1 buildings with adjacent parking structure on the same premise; (4) S2 buildings served by underground parking structures; (5) S3 buildings with parking structures above grade under the building; (6) NP buildings with no parking required. I have also included a set of shelter capacity and property demand forecast models for independent parking garages (PG) in a book I will mention at the end of this essay even though I don’t consider them buildings for human habitation unless dictated by an emergency.

My emphasis on parking rather than building style and appearance stems from my effort to accurately forecast the gross building area capacity of an acre of land when floor quantity options are correlated with the other pivotal design decisions involved. These are the options for growing populations that we are expected to balance within limited geographic areas to share the planet with all that depend on it for survival. It is a deceptively simple proposition. It is complicated by the number of opinions, variables and decisions that must be correlated. Our mistake has been to overlook some of these decision topics and consider the remainder independently.

Shelter capacity forecasting depends on the simple subtraction of design specification values. They are entered in the shaded cells of a forecast model related to a chosen building design category and given land area. This subtraction proceeds from the given land area given to the core area remaining for building and parking area. Subtraction is performed by an embedded algorithm that correlates all values entered to arrive at the core area remaining. A master equation related to the building design category calculates a range of gross building area options for the land area, topic values entered, and range of floor quantity options introduced. A change to one or more of these values changes the gross building area predictions calculated by the forecast model. These are the shelter capacity options available for the land area based on the design specification values entered. The intensity represented by each prediction is calculated with a separate equation in the model.

The forecast model format and its mathematical foundation introduce a comprehensive, correlated leadership language that can also be used to accurately measure existing physical conditions. The evaluation measured and recorded can then be used to lead future design specification decisions with improved knowledge. We cannot do this without a language that has the potential to lead with fundamental, comprehensive shelter design specifications. It is now possible to predict the options available and evaluate the consequences implied with the organized measurement, evaluation, and documentation needed to build knowledge long before appearance becomes an issue.

TABLE 1

I have included Table 1 in many essays and am repeating it here as an example of a complete, correlated set of design specification topics and values for the G1 Building Design Category.

There are 26 shaded cells in Table 1 for the G1.L1 forecast model. Each value entered in a shaded cell is correlated by an algorithm, and a master equation in cell J47, to produce the gross building area options in cells B44-B53. I mention this to make the point that regulating each shaded value independently is a hopeless exercise without the leadership potential needed to produce total average revenue per acre equal to or exceeding a city’s average expense per acre within its geographic limits without budget reductions.

The shaded cells in Table 1 are not intended to replace an entire zoning ordinance. They are intended to replace independent design specification topics with the correlation needed to lead shelter capacity toward its intended intensity and occupancy goals. (See “The Disorganized Zoning Ordinance”)

Gross building area prediction is the first objective in Table 1. The other predictions in the Forecast Panel add initial detail needed by a designer. The Implications Panel measures the consequences of the values entered in the Design Specification Template. The final intensity and dominance columns of the Implications Panel measure the results produced by the shaded cell values entered and their gross building area predictions, to make evaluation and knowledge accumulation feasible.

It should be obvious that language and knowledge accumulation is limited by the vocabulary available. Shelter intensity has been a term without adequate definition ever since its presence was recognized with instinct, intuition, awareness, and observation. Density and the Floor Area Ratio have been easy to measure but they report results from design decisions and do not lead them. This lack of correlation has prevented us from providing the shelter massing and intensity leadership required to improve the physical pattern that shapes our quality of life. Current zoning stipulations have simply led to variance appeals and sprawling annexation in search of elusive physical, social, and economic balance.”

EXCERPTS FROM “LAND USE and DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY CORRELATION” (with modifications)

“The public revenue implications of the gross building area forecast in Table 1 are easiest to explain by looking at the options predicted in cells B44-B53. If $10 of revenue were expected per sq. ft. of gross building area, the total annual revenue would range from $48,843 to $73,511 depending on the floor quantity chosen. Since the buildable land area noted in cell F10 is 100% of the gross land area given in cell F3, the total revenue projections would be divided by 5.230 acres to find the revenue potential per acre provided by the city’s inventory. This would range from $9,339 to $14,055 per acre. A simple comparison with the city’s annual expense per acre would indicate the contribution or subsidy implications of the land and building options contemplated.

The results that evolve from fundamental design specification decisions have been overlooked for centuries. The Implications Module in Table 1 illustrates one method of measuring the impact of these decisions. When these measurements are combined with the financial evaluation mentioned in the paragraph above, it will become easier for a city to evaluate the combined impact of its shelter design decisions. A city that understands these implications for every parcel within its jurisdiction is a city that is prepared to evaluate the land use and urban design decisions that will affect its future.

If a city does not understand the economic implications of land use and shelter capacity allocation, it will continue pursuing random economic development projects without the comprehensive strategy needed to lead its physical decisions to foreseeable financial improvement in a revenue and expense equation that determines its quality of life and the demands it places on its limited source of life.

CONCLUSION

I hope I have shown that it is entirely possible to mathematically correlate land consumption with gross building area capacity, activity, economic potential, and quality of life within limited geographic areas when the leadership topics for each building design category classification are comprehensively defined and correlated with the algorithms, value decisions, and master equations required. The goal is to constructively define a limited Built Domain without excessive and continuing reliance on annexation. I think we all understand at some level of comprehension that limits are required. It remains to define them with a language that can lead us to consistently positive results.

I have contributed the conceptual framework and technical information needed to continue this discussion in my book, “The Equations of Urban Design”. It is available on Amazon.com but the title may have been an unfortunate choice since the book is not consumed with equations. They are simply the foundation on which the conceptual, predictive, measurement, and evaluation format is based. I have also published over 190 essays regarding this topic at my blog www.wmhosack.blogspot.com and posted the more recent on Linked-In. The blog has been visited by over 32,000 readers.

There is a lot of work to be done to reach the only goal that matters. Symbiotic survival is not an option. It is a mandate that will not be met until our habitat ceases to be a threat to ourselves and its source of life – the Natural Domain.

Escape to Mars will simply prolong our mistaken assumptions regarding land ownership prerogatives, shelter capacity, and population growth.”

Walter M. Hosack: January, 2023