Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.21.18 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF EVANSTON, ILLINOIS LORRAINE H. MORTON CIVIC CENTER JAMES C. LYTLE COUNCIL CHAMBERS Monday, May 21, 2018 6:00 PM ORDER OF BUSINESS (I) Roll Call – Begin with Alderman Rue Simmons (II) Mayor Public Announcements and Proclamations National Public Works Week, May 20-26 National Gun Violence Awareness Day, June 2 National Historic Preservation Month, May (III) City Manager Public Announcements 100 Best Government Fleet Operations Award Cradle to Career Update (IV) Communications: City Clerk (V) Public Comment Members of the public are welcome to speak at City Council meetings. As part of the Council agenda, a period for public comments shall be offered at the commencement of each regular Council meeting. Public comments will be noted in the City Council Minutes and become part of the official record. Those wishing to speak should sign their name and the agenda item or non- agenda topic to be addressed on a designated participation sheet. If there are five or fewer speakers, fifteen minutes shall be provided for Public Comment. If there are more than five speakers, a period of forty-five minutes shall be provided for all comment, and no individual shall speak longer than three minutes. Speakers may not give their time to other speakers. The Mayor will allocate time among the speakers to ensure that Public Comment does not exceed forty-five minutes. The business of the City Council shall commence forty-five minutes after the beginning of Public Comment. Aldermen do not respond during Public Comment. Public Comment is intended to foster dialogue in a respectful and civil manner. Public comments are requested to be made with these guidelines in mind. 1 of 188 City Council Agenda May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 3 (VI) Special Orders of Business SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (SP1) Public Benefits and Impact Fees from Planned Developments Staff requests City Council direction, which could come in the form of a referral to the Plan Commission if a Text Amendment is recommended or a recommendation for no further action. For Discussion (SP2) Implementation of West Evanston Form-Based Code and Impact on Potential New Development Staff seeks City Council direction on making zoning changes to the West Evanston Overlay district in order to preserve community-driven desires for urban form while encouraging the sustainable redevelopment of underutilized or vacant properties. For Discussion (SP3) 2018 Capital Improvement Program Staff will present City Council with the proposed 2018 Capital Improvement Program and seek feedback via discussion on how much to issue in General Obligation Bonds for 2018. For Discussion (SP4) Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Project Update Staff will present City Council with an update on the Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library project. Topics covered will include project costs, bond issue, construction timeline, economic benefit plan, guaranteed maximum price proposal and turf field options. For Discussion (VII) Call of the Wards (Aldermen shall be called upon by the Mayor to announce or provide information about any Ward or City matter which an Alderman desires to bring before the Council.) {Council Rule 2.1(10)} (VIII) Executive Session (IX) Adjournment 2 of 188 City Council Agenda May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 3 MEETINGS SCHEDULED THROUGH MAY 2018 Upcoming Aldermanic Committee Meetings 5/23/2018 6:00 PM Transportation and Parking Committee 5/23/2018 7:30 PM Economic Development Committee 5/24/2018 3:00 PM Priority-Based Budgeting Open House 5/24/2018 6:30 PM Equity & Empowerment Commission 5/25/2018 8:00 AM Alternatives to Arrest Committee 5/29/2018 6:00 PM Administration & Public Works, Planning & Development, City Council Information is available about Evanston City Council meetings at: www.cityofevanston.org/citycouncil. Questions can be directed to the City Manager’s Office at 847-866-2936. The City is committed to ensuring accessibility for all citizens. If an accommodation is needed to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager’s Office 48 hours in advance so that arrangements can be made for the accommodation if possible. 3 of 188 For City Council meeting of May 21, 2018 Item SP1 Public Benefits and Impact Fees for Planned Developments For Discussion To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Erika Storlie, Assistant City Manager/Acting Director of Community Development Johanna Leonard, Director of Community Development Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Administrator Subject: Public Benefits and Impact Fees for Planned Developments Date: May 15, 2018 Recommended Action Staff requests City Council direction, which could come in the form of a referral to the Plan Commission if a Text Amendment is recommended or a recommendation for no further action. Livability Benefits Built Environment: Provide compact and complete streets and neighborhoods Summary An exaction, commonly known as a public benefit, is a legal concept in which a condition for development is imposed on a piece of property that requires the developer to mitigate negative impacts of the development. The City of Evanston Zoning Ordinance (City Code Section 6-3-6-3) lists the nine public benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole that are intended to be derived from the approval of planned developments, which include, but are not limited to: (A) Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open space. (B) A pattern of development which preserves natural vegetation, topographic and geologic features. (C) Preservation and enhancement of historic and natural resources that significantly contribute to the character of the City. (D) Use of design, landscape, or architectural features to create a pleasing environment or other special development features. (E) Provision of a variety of housing types in accordance with the City's housing goals. Memorandum 4 of 188 2 (F) Elimination of blighted structures or incompatible uses through redevelopment or rehabilitation. (G) Business, commercial, and manufacturing development to enhance the local economy and strengthen the tax base. (H) The efficient use of the land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets, schools, public grounds, buildings, and other facilities. (I) The substantial incorporation of generally recognized sustainable design practices and/or building materials to promote energy conservation and improve environmental quality, such as level silver or higher LEED (leadership in energy and environmental design) certification. While a definitive list of all appropriate public benefits does not exist, the following exactions can be utilized by the City for a development: · Dedications for Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Public Ways · Impact Fees · Payment into a Public Fund Not Already Required By Code (e.g. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) · Public Art · Cultural Facilities · Landscaping/Creation of Open Space for the Public · Open Space · Public Access to Private Facilities · Public Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements · Public Access to Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and Car Share Programs · Public Safety Enhancements (such as blue lights) · Free or Discounted Transit Passes for Employees and Renters · Operation of a Shuttle Service · Recreational Facilities Open to the Public (e.g. Parks or Gardens) · Facilities for Non-Profit Organizations · Historic Preservation Recent planned development ordinances have contained a range of conditions of approval relating to public benefits. A summary of recently approved planned developments and their associated benefits is attached. Many of the benefits relate to supporting transportation systems, streetscape infrastructure, public art components, sustainability elements, and affordable housing. Other Local Municipalities Preliminary research indicates that other municipalities have enacted ordinances which vary in whether or how they address public benefits. For example, the Village of Skokie provides for the imposition of reasonable contributions, including dedications of land for public purposes, installation of streetscape infrastructure, and/or preservation of areas containing significant natural, environmental, or historic resources. The Village of Wilmette requires benefits to grant exceptions to district regulations for Planned 5 of 188 3 Developments including community amenities, preservation of historic structures, adaptive reuse, preservation of environmental features, public open space, public infrastructure, affordable or accessible dwelling units, and/or sustainable design. The City of Highland Park requires public benefits, which include sustainable building and site design, streetscape improvements, and/or downtown improvements. A number of other municipalities either do not have ordinances that require public benefits for planned developments or have requirements for impact fees relating to all residential development. Impact fees are more common in jurisdictions where considerable open land exists that requires new infrastructure in order to be developed. Impact Fees A proposal raised by City Council was to look at the implementation of impact fees for Planned Developments. According to a 2008 study prepared by TischlerBise for the City of Evanston regarding park and library impact fees, impact fees are one‐time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth’s fair share of capital facility needs. By law, impact fees must only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal scrutiny and must satisfy three key requirements: need, benefit and proportionality. First, to justify an impact fee for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the impact fees (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). Third, the impact fee paid by a particular type of development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. In Illinois, impact fees are limited to infrastructure for items such as parks, schools, libraries, roads, and water infrastructure. Since impact fees must be imposed in a proportional manner, the City should not exclusively limit impact fees to planned developments; impact fees would need to be applied to a broader base, such as all new residences. Attached are the 2008 Parks and Libraries Impact Fee Study and two recent Northwest Municipal Conference Surveys should the Planning and Development Committee decide to explore more in depth discussions about impact fees. Incentive Zoning Some municipalities have implemented incentive based zoning regulations, where developers are granted development bonuses (i.e. increased height, floor area ratio, etc.) as a result of certain development criteria (i.e. green roofs, preservation, increased building setbacks, and other urban design features). This approach was included in the Form Based Zoning component of the 2009 Downtown Plan that was proposed in the plan, but never codified. 6 of 188 4 City of Chicago – Neighborhood Opportunity Fund The City of Chicago moved away from an incentive based downtown zoning strategy in 2016 with the establishment of the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus. The Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus essentially allows developments to voluntarily purchase additional FAR in certain areas adjacent to downtown where a map amendment is requested in the form of a planned development. Cash contributions for additional FAR are allocated toward the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (80%) used for economic development in underserved areas of the City, Local Impact Fund (10%) to support improvements near the site, and Adopt-a-Landmark Fund (10%) to restore structures designated as official landmarks. Attachments Public Benefits approved per recent Planned Development Ordinances 2008 TischlerBise Parks and Libraries Impact Fee Study Northwest Municipal Conference Surveys relating to Impact Fees in other Communities 7 of 188 8 of 188 9 of 188 10 of 188       IMPACT FEE STUDY ~PARKS AND LIBRARIES~ City of Evanston, Illinois                    January 31, 2008      Prepared By:  11 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         i    IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES City of Evanston, Illinois   CONTENTS   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................1 Methodologies and Approach ..........................................................................................................2 Credits ............................................................................................................................................2 Summary of Impact Fees ...................................................................................................................3 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees By Type of Land Use ............................................................3 Figure 1. Summary of Maximum Allowable Parks and Library Impact Fees.............................4 INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................5 Definition ............................................................................................................................................5 Legal Framework.................................................................................................................................5 Required Findings ..............................................................................................................................6 Methodologies and Credits...............................................................................................................7 Generic Impact Fee Calculation .......................................................................................................8 Figure 2. Generic Impact Fee Formula........................................................................................9 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES ...................................................................................10 Methodology......................................................................................................................................10 Figure 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Methodology Chart...............................................11 Parks & Recreation Level of Service Standards and Costs........................................................11 Community and Lakefront Parks Improvements....................................................................11 Figure 4. Parks Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ...................................................13 Recreation and Community Centers .........................................................................................14 Figure 5. Recreation / Community Center Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors.........14 Cost for Impact Fee Study...........................................................................................................14 Figure 6. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Parks Portion)............................................................14 Credit Evaluation..............................................................................................................................15 Figure 7. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt ......................15 Summary of Factors for Parks and Recreation Impact Fee........................................................16 Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Input Variables........................................................................16 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Parks and Recreation....................................................17 Figure 9. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit .17 Service Area........................................................................................................................................17 Cash Flow Projections......................................................................................................................18 Figure 10. Cash Flow Summary for Parks................................................................................18 LIBRARY IMPACT FEES.................................................................................................................19 Methodology......................................................................................................................................19 Figure 11. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart...................................................................19 Library Level of Service Standards and Costs.............................................................................20 12 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         ii  Library Building ...........................................................................................................................20 Figure 12. Library Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ..............................................20 Library Collection Materials.......................................................................................................20 Figure 13. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards.........................................21 Cost for Impact Fee Study...........................................................................................................21 Figure 14. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Library Portion).......................................................21 Credit Evaluation..............................................................................................................................22 Figure 15. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Library Debt ..........................................22 Summary of Factors for Library Impact Fee.................................................................................23 Figure 16. Library Input Variables............................................................................................23 Maximum Allowable Impact Fees for Libraries..........................................................................24 Figure 17. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit .....................24 Service Area........................................................................................................................................24 Cash Flow Projections......................................................................................................................25 Figure 18. Cash Flow Summary for Libraries...........................................................................25 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................26 Credits and Reimbursements .........................................................................................................26 Future Revenue Credits...............................................................................................................26 Site‐Specific Credits......................................................................................................................27 Collection and Expenditure Zones.................................................................................................27 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................A‐1   13 of 188         E XECUTIVE S UMMARY     OVERVIEW   TischlerBise was retained by the City of Evanston, Illinois, to analyze potential impact fee  funding to meet the demands for public facilities generated by new development in the City.  TischlerBise calculated impact fees for two types of public capital improvements: (1) Parks and  Recreation and (2) Libraries. (TischlerBise also calculated capacity fees for Water and excise  taxes for Streets; reports are issued under separate cover.) Methodologies and calculations are  presented in this report as supporting documentation for implementation of impact fees in  Evanston.    Impact fees are one‐time payments used to construct system improvements needed to  accommodate new development. An impact fee represents new growth’s fair share of capital  facility needs. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or  maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards, which require fulfillment of three  key elements: need, benefit and proportionality. First, to justify a fee for public facilities, it must  be demonstrated that new development will create a need for capital improvements. Second,  new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public  facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe).  Third, the fee paid by a particular type of  development should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system  improvements.    TischlerBise documented appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the impact  fees. Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and costs. This report includes  summary tables indicating the specific factors used to derive the impact fees. These factors are  referred to as level of service standards. The Park and Library impact fees are based on  residential demand only. The geographic area for the implementation of the fees is the City of  Evanston for all categories.      14 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         2  METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACH   There are three basic methods used to calculate impact fees. The incremental expansion  method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both  quantitative and qualitative measures.  The intent is to use revenue collected to expand or  provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the  current cost to provide capital improvements. The plan‐based method is commonly used for  public facilities that have adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital  improvements, such as utility systems. A third approach, known as the cost recovery  method, is based on the rationale that new development is paying for its share of the useful  life and remaining unused capacity of an existing facility. The incremental and cost recovery  methodologies are employed for the fees included in this study and are described further in  this report.      CREDITS   A general requirement common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. Two  types of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site‐specific credits.  Revenue credits may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from  a one‐time impact fee plus the payment of other revenues (e.g., property taxes) that may also  fund growth‐related capital improvements. Because new development may provide front‐ end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to  future payments on debt for public facilities.    Future revenue credits are necessary for the Parks and Library impact fees due outstanding  debt on capacity projects that will be retired using property taxes. Due to this outstanding  debt, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal  payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments  because interest costs are not included in the fee calculations. This type of credit is integrated  into the Parks and Library impact fee calculation.     The second type of credit is a site‐specific credit for system improvements that have been  included in the impact fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site‐specific credits  for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the  development fees. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site‐ specific credits only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the  impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development  approval process are not eligible for credits against impact fees.    15 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         3    SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES   The impact fees calculated for the City of Evanston represent the highest amount feasible for  each type of applicable land use, or maximum allowable amounts, which represents new  growth’s fair share of the cost for the appropriate capital facilities. The City may adopt fees  that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will  necessitate an increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or  a decrease in levels of service.    The Parks and Recreation impact fee is based on the current level of service for Parks and  Recreation facilities and uses the incremental expansion methodology. Components of the  fee include Community / Lakefront Parks and Recreation Centers. The Parks impact fees are  calculated for residential development only. Based on the current level of service for Parks  and Recreation Centers, current costs, and average household size by type of unit in  Evanston, the maximum allowable Parks impact fee for a single family detached unit is  $3,516 per unit; for a townhouse and multifamily unit in a building with 2‐9 units, the fee is  $2,965 per unit; and for a multifamily unit in a building with 10+ units, the fee is $1,921 per  unit.     The Library impact fee uses both the cost recovery and incremental expansion  methodologies and includes costs for library buildings and collections serving the City of  Evanston. Library impact fees are calculated for residential development only. The current  Library building is estimated to have excess capacity to serve new development, therefore  levels of service are based on projected population. Based on levels of service, current costs,  and average household size by type of unit in Evanston, the maximum allowable Library  impact fees by type of land use are: $848 per single family detached unit; $715 for a  townhouse and multifamily unit in a building with 2‐9 units; and $463 per unit for a  multifamily unit in a building with 10+ units.     MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE   Figure 1 provides a schedule of the maximum allowable impact fees by type of land use for  Parks and Libraries. Fees are shown per housing unit. The fees represent the highest amount  allowable for each type of applicable land use, which represents new growth’s fair share of  the cost for capital facilities. The fees are based on costs in current dollars. Fees should be  collected when building permits are issued. The City may adopt fees that are less than the  amounts shown. However, a reduction in fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other  revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.    16 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         4    Figure 1. Summary of Maximum Allowable Parks and Library Impact Fees Parks &  Recreation Libraries TOTAL Residential ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Per Housing Unit ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Single Family Detached* $3,516 $848 $4,364 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $2,965 $715 $3,680 Attached Units: 10+ Units $1,921 $463 $2,384 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes       A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted  using Excel software. Results are discussed in the report using one‐and two‐digit places (in  most cases), which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures  carried to their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the  analysis may not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the  factors shown in the report (due to the rounding of figures shown).    17 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         5      I NTRODUCTION TO I MPACT F EES     DEFINITION   Impact fees, also known as development or development impact fees, are one‐time payments  used to fund capital improvements necessitated by new growth. Impact fees have been  utilized by local governments in various forms for at least fifty years. Impact fees do have  limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing  needs. Rather, they should be considered one component of a comprehensive portfolio to  ensure adequate provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of  service in a community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following  limitations:   ƒ Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to  finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance costs;  ƒ Impact fees cannot be deposited in the local government’s General Fund.  The funds  must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the  capital expenses for which they were collected; and  ƒ Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there  is a funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and  businesses in the community.       LEGAL FRAMEWORK   U.S. Constitution.  Like all land use regulations, development exactions—including impact  fees—are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for  public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the  imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation,  provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply  with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially  advance a legitimate governmental interest.  In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the  protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that development is not  detrimental to the quality of essential public services.     There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on  other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most  18 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         6  important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing  exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and  the interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more  recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be  “roughly proportional” to the burden created by development.  However, the Dolan decision  appeared to set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for  monetary exactions such as impact fees.      REQUIRED FINDINGS   There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related  to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of  state courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the  standard by which courts evaluate the validity of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we  prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: “impact or need,”  “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the  first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by  the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the statute  is considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual  elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.    Demonstrating an Impact.  All new development in a community creates additional demands  on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not  increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for  the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of  development‐related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a  consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the  principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the  developments upon which they are imposed.  That principle clearly applies to impact fees.   In this study, the impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of  quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for  specific facilities, based on applicable level‐of‐service standards.      Demonstrating a Benefit.  A sufficient benefit relationship requires that facility fee revenues be  segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were  charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees  must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or  the State enabling Act requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively  to development paying the fees.  In other words, existing development may benefit from  these improvements as well.   19 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         7    Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by  the State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously  or refunded. All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit  from the fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address  procedural as well as substantive issues.     Demonstrating Proportionality.  The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts  of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the  relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to  establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to  identify development‐related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees  for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is  measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the  need for school improvements is measured by the number of public school‐age children  generated by development.      METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS   Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees.  The choice of a  particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning  requirements for the facility type being addressed.  Each method has advantages and  disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because  each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.      Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps:  (1) determining the cost of development‐related capital improvements and (2) allocating  those costs equitably to various types of development.  In practice, though, the calculation of  impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in  defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities.  The following  paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods  can be applied.     Plan‐Based Fee Calculation. The plan‐based method allocates costs for a specified set of  improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a  facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost  of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then,  the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development  (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per  specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit).     20 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         8    Cost Recovery or Buy‐In Fee Calculation.  The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that  new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities  already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This  methodology is often used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water  facilities.     Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation.  The incremental expansion method documents the  current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and  qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student).  This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies nor surplus  capacity in infrastructure.  New development is only paying its proportionate share for  growth‐related infrastructure. The level of service standards are determined in a manner  similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies.  However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee revenues would not be for renewal  and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue will be used to expand or provide  additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental  expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular  increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community.     Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of “credits” is integral to the  development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of “credits”  each with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the  development of impact fees.  The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations.   This could occur when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital  costs of the public facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the  impact fee calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of  public sites or improvements provided by the developer and for which the facility fee is  imposed. This type of credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a  facility fee program.      GENERIC IMPACT FEE CALCULATION   In contrast to development exactions, which are typically referred to as project‐level  improvements, impact fees fund growth‐related infrastructure that will benefit multiple  development projects, or even the entire jurisdiction. The basic steps in a generic impact fee  formula are illustrated in Figure 2. The first step (see the left box) is to determine an  appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the particular type of infrastructure. The  demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or service units for each unit of  21 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         9  development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for parks is population  growth and the increase in population can be estimated from the average number of persons  per housing unit. The second step in the generic impact fee formula is shown in the middle  box below. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called “Level of Service” (LOS)  standards. In keeping with the park example, a common LOS standard is park acreage per  thousand people. The third step in the generic impact fee formula, as illustrated in the right  box, is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the park example, this part of the  formula would establish the cost per acre for park development.    Figure 2. Generic Impact Fee Formula XX Dollars per Infrastructure Unit Infrastructure Units per Demand Unit Demand Units per Development Unit XX Dollars per Infrastructure Unit Infrastructure Units per Demand Unit Demand Units per Development Unit                     Persons per housing unit Level of Service {e.g., acres per 1,000 persons} Cost {e.g., $ per Acre} 22 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         10    P ARKS AND R ECREATION I MPACT F EES     METHODOLOGY   The City of Evanston Parks and Recreation Impact Fee uses the incremental expansion  methodology. Parks impact fees should only be assessed on residential development.  Community and Lakefront Parks are included as they represent community‐level facilities  serving the entire City, as opposed to smaller facilities benefiting a more limited area. Costs  to make improvements at these facilities are included. Land is not included at this time as the  City intends to make improvements at existing park sites with impact fee funds. Also  included in the fee calculation is Recreation/Community Centers. The City’s Recreation  Centers also serve a Citywide population and the City expects to expand those types of  facilities as well. All facility costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development.  Neighborhood parks and smaller scale recreation amenities are not included in the fee  calculation as they serve more limited areas.     Figure 3 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Parks and Recreation  Impact Fee. It is intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed  breakdown of the impact fee components.  The park impact fee is derived from the product  of persons per housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person.   The boxes in the next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee.  23 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         11    Figure 3. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Methodology Chart         PARKS & RECREATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS   Community and Lakefront Parks Improvements    Park impact fees are based on an inventory of existing citywide Parks and current values of  park improvements in the City of Evanston’s park system. The demand base for the City’s  park facilities is population. Levels of service are based on the current amount of  infrastructure provided for the existing population. Community and Lakefront Parks are  those parks that provide recreational amenities such as baseball/softball fields,  soccer/football fields, athletic courts, field houses, and beachfront access that draw from a  citywide service area. The Park impact fee component is based on the incremental expansion  methodology as the City plans to make improvements to these types of parks to  accommodate demand from new development. The City of Evanston has a parkland area for  these types of parks of approximately 219 acres. This results in a level of service of 2.8 acres  per 1,000 residents.    PARKS and RECREATION  IMPACT FEE  Persons per Housing Unit by   Type of Unit  Multiplied By Net Capital   Cost per Person  Community and Lakefront Parks  Improvements   Cost per Person   Plus Recreation / Community  Center   Cost per Person  Minus Principal Payment Credit  Residential   Development  24 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois         12  Figure 4 provides an inventory of Community and Lakefront Park improvements with  replacement costs. Based on the inventory of improvements and current unit prices, Park  improvements have an average cost of approximately $197,500 per acre. On a per capita  basis, park improvements cost approximately $553 per person in the City. The total current  value of park improvements is approximately $43.3 million. City staff confirmed unit prices  for each type of improvement as shown in Figure 4, based on local costs. Miscellaneous costs  equal $100,000 per acre, which include such items as lighting, paving (parking lots,  sidewalks, paths, trails), site features/furniture (signage, benches, trash receptacles, drinking  fountains, picnic tables, grills), fencing, irrigation, and landscaping. Future park  improvements will be made at existing parks. Figure 4 provides further detail with level of  service standards shown at the bottom right corner of the figure.           25 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois    13 Figure 4. Parks Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors  #Park NameAcreage Tennis Courts PlaygroundBaseball / Softball FieldsSoccer / Football FieldsOutdoor Basketball CourtVolleyball Courts Field House Misc*1Ackerman Park1.32111.32Beck, Eugene, Park**5.515.53Bent Park3.22111113.24 Burnham Shores Park5.021 5.05Butler, Isabella, Park**11.11111.16 Centennial Park and Clark Street Beach10.6 6110.67 Chandler Park3.210.53.28Clark Square4.94.99Crown Park14.7432014.710 Dawes Park12.4112.411 Elliott Park7.6 17.612 Foster Field 5.1212115.113 Garden Park1.411.414 Harbert, Elizabeth Boynton, Park**13.51113.515James Park 45.6 6 1 8 6 1145.616 Ladd Arboretum17.417.417 Lawson, Lawrence O., Park1.611.618 Leahy Park4.0411114.019 Lighthouse Landing Beach/Park6.416.420 Lovelace, Walter S., Park17.86111117.821 Lunt, Cornelia Park1.81.822 Mason Park5.221113.515.223 Patriotʹs Park0.50.524 South Boulevard Beach2.612.625 Tallmadge, Thomas Eddy, Park3.71210.53.726 Twiggs, William H., Park**13.2211.013.2Total Units219.13017201411611219.1Unit Price (wt avg)$100,000 $300,000 $100,000 $150,000 $60,000 $50,000 $750,000 $100,000Units x Price$3,000,000 $5,100,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $630,000 $300,000 $8,250,000 $21,914,200Total Value of Improvements$43,294,200Population in 2007 78,274Community Park Acres Per 1,000 Residents2.8Improvement Cost Per Acre (rounded) $197,500Improvements Cost Per Capita $553.10** Land is leased by City of Evanston; the City improves and maintains the properties, therefore the improved acreage and amenities are included in the Cityʹs level of service. Source: City of Evanston* Based on improved acreage. Miscellaneous improvements include items such as lighting, paving (parking lots, sidewalks, paths, trails), site features/furniture (signage, benches, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, picnic tables, grills), fencing, irrigation, and landscaping.26 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       14    Recreation and Community Centers     The Recreation and Community Center component of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is  based on the current square footage and replacement value of recreational facilities serving  the City. As shown in Figure 5, total square footage for the City’s recreational facilities is  175,931 square feet, which equates to 2.25 square feet per capita based on the 2007  population estimate of 78,274. The incremental expansion approach is used as the City plans  to maintain the current level of service to accommodate new development. Costs to expand  this type of facility are estimated at $325 per square foot, per City staff, for a total estimated  replacement value of approximately $57 million. This results in a cost per capita of $730.47.     Figure 5. Recreation / Community Center Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Facility Square Footage Cost/SF  Cost 1Chandler‐Newberger Center 14,000 $325 $4,550,000 2Dempster Street Beach Office and Aquatics Center 3,300 $325 $1,072,500 3Evanston Ecology Center 6,720 $325 $2,184,000 4 Fleetwood‐Jourdain Center 14,911 $325 $4,846,075 5Levy Senior Center 26,000 $325 $8,450,000 6Noyes Cultural Arts Center 50,000 $325 $16,250,000 7Robert Crown Community Center & Ice Complex 61,000 $325 $19,825,000 TOTAL 175,931 $325 $57,177,575 Population in 2007 78,274 Square Foot Per Capita 2.25 Cost per Capita $730.47 Source: City of Evanston     Cost for Impact Fee Study    Included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the Parks and Recreation portion of the  impact fees. This is calculated based on the projected growth in Evanston population over  the next three years, which represents the appropriate amount of time before the fees should  be updated to reflect changes in development and levels of service. The cost per person of  $10.41 is derived by dividing the consultant cost by the projected increase in population over  three years. ($13,200 / 1,267 = $10.41.) See Figure 6.    Figure 6. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Parks Portion) Consultant Cost $13,200 Population increase (3yr) 1,267 Cost per capita $10.41   27 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       15    CREDIT EVALUATION   The City has outstanding debt for parks and recreation improvements that will be retired  through property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in  the impact fee for future principal payments on this General Obligation debt. New  residential development in the City of Evanston that will pay Parks impact fees will also  contribute to future principal payments paid from property tax revenue.     City staff provided the amount of current outstanding Parks and Recreation Debt, which is  then averaged out over the term of the debt. To account for the time value of money, annual  principal payments per capita are discounted using a net present value formula based on an  estimated average interest rate. A credit is only necessary for principal payments because  interest costs are not added to the impact fees. Figure 7 shows the credit calculation based on  the projected principal payments starting in fiscal year 2007 through the remainder of each of  the bonds’ term. The debt is allocated 100 percent to residential development. The applicable  net present value of the credit is $45.68 per person. This will be subtracted from the gross  capital cost per demand unit to derive a net capital cost per person in calculating the  maximum supportable fee.    Figure 7. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Parks and Recreation Debt Payment Series 1998 Series 1999 Series 2000 Series 2002 Series 2003 Series 2004 Series 2005 Series 2006 Series 2007 Payment Per Year Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Total Population [1] Person 2007 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 78,274 $4.13 2008 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 78,697 $4.11 2009 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,119 $4.09 2010 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,542 $4.07 2011 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 79,964 $4.04 2012 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 80,387 $4.02 2013 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 80,809 $4.00 2014 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 81,232 $3.98 2015 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 81,654 $3.96 2016 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 82,077 $3.94 2017 $8,265 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $323,343 82,499 $3.92 2018 $17,916 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $315,077 82,499 $3.82 2019 $55,763 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $297,162 82,499 $3.60 2020 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $241,398 82,499 $2.93 2021 $85,083 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $241,398 82,499 $2.93 2022 $15,757 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $156,316 82,499 $1.89 2023 $65,572 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $140,558 82,499 $1.70 2024 $57,502 $6,316 $11,169 $74,987 82,499 $0.91 2025 $6,316 $11,169 $17,484 82,499 $0.21 2026 $11,169 $11,169 82,499 $0.14 TOTAL $90,917 $214,987 $724,925 $1,276,243 $252,113 $1,114,718 $1,035,043 $120,000 $223,373 $5,052,319 $62.39 Discount Rate 4.0% Net Present Value [2] $45.68 [1] See Appendix for population projections; buildout is assumed by year 2017 [2] To account for the time value of money, total payment per person is discounted using a net present value formula assuming an average interest rate of 4%.  Source: City of Evanston; TischlerBise   28 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       16      SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE   Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Park and Recreation impact fees are shown in  the boxed area of Figure 8. Impact fees for Parks are based on household size for three types  of residential units: single‐family detached units, attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in  a building), and attached units (10+ units in a structure). Level of service standards are based  on current costs per person for Community and Lakefront Parks and Recreation /  Community Centers as described in the previous sections and summarized below. Each cost  component of the Parks and Recreation impact fee is shown as a cost per person.     The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for parks,  recreation centers, and consultant cost ($553.10 + $730.47 + $10.41 = $1,293.98). As shown, the  principal payment credit ($45.68) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to  determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $1,248.30 per  person).     Figure 8. Parks and Recreation Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential  Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family Detached* 2.82 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38 Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54 Level Of Service Community & Lakefront Park Improvements Cost Per Person (Incremental) $553.10 Recreation Center Cost Per Person (Incremental) $730.47 Consultant Cost Per Person $10.41 Total Cost Per Person $1,293.98 Principal Payment Credit Per Person ($45.68) TOTAL NET CAPITAL COST PER PERSON $1,248.30 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes     29 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       17    MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION   The Parks and Recreation impact fee is the product of persons per housing unit multiplied  by the capital cost per person for each component of the fee. The gross total cost per person is  reduced by the credit per unit to arrive at the impact fee by type of housing unit. For  example, the component for Parks improvements is derived by multiplying the persons per  housing unit for single family detached housing of 2.82 by $553.10 to arrive at $1,558 per  unit. This is repeated for each component of the fee including the principal payment credit.  Each is then added together to arrive at the total impact fee per unit. For a single family  detached unit, the fee is $3,516; for attached units of townhouses and 2‐9 units, the fee is  $2,965; and for attached units of 10+ units, the fee is $1,921.     Figure 9. Parks and Recreation Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES Rec Consultant Parks Centers Credit Fee TOTAL ~~~~  Per Housing Unit ~~~~ Single Family Detached*$1,558 $2,058 ($129)$29 $3,516 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $1,314 $1,735 ($109)$25 $2,965 Attached Units: 10+ Units $851 $1,124 ($70)$16 $1,921 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes       SERVICE AREA   The impact fees calculated are for the infrastructure needed by the City of Evanston.  Therefore, the service area is the City of Evanston. Fees should be collected from  development in the City and spent on parks and recreation improvements to serve this  growth.     30 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       18    CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS   This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Evanston, if the Parks and  Recreation impact fee is implemented at the maximum allowable amounts. The cash flow  projections are based on the assumptions detailed in this study and provide an indication of  the impact fee revenue and capital expenditures necessary to meet the demand for new  parks and recreation facilities brought about by new development. To the extent the rate of  development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in  impact fee revenue and capital costs. The development projections on which the cash flow  summary is based can be found in the Appendix to this report.      Figure 10 provides a summary of the projected five‐year cash flow from the Parks impact fee  and associated capital costs. The impact fee revenue averages $527,000 per year if the fee is  implemented at the maximum allowable level, for a five‐year total of approximately $2.6  million. Parks capital costs brought about by growth equal an average of $547,000 per year,  or $2.7 million over 5 years. Impact fee revenue does not cover the entire cost of future  growth‐related Park improvements due to the credit included in the fee calculation. The  projected deficits, indicated by “(  )” around the numbers, will require supplemental revenue  to adequately fund the improvements. The 5‐year shortfall is estimated at approximately  $97,000.     Figure 10. Cash Flow Summary for Parks 5‐Year 5‐Year  12345Cumulative Average (Current $ in thousands)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Annual REVENUES PARKS 1Parks Fee ‐ Single Family Detached* $0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 2Parks Fee ‐ Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $667 $133 3Parks Fee ‐Attached Units: 10+ Units $394 $394 $394 $394 $394 $1,969 $394 Subtotal Parks Fees $527 $527 $527 $527 $527 $2,636 $527 CAPITAL COSTS PARKS Community / Lakefront  Parks $234 $234 $234 $234 $234 $1,168 $234 Recreation Centers $309 $309 $309 $309 $309 $1,543 $309 Consultant Cost $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $22 $4 Subtotal Parks Costs $547 $547 $547 $547 $547 $2,733 $547 NET CAPITAL FACILITIES CASH FLOW PARKS Current $ in thousands Annual Surplus (or Deficit)($19) ($19) ($19) ($19) ($19) ($19) Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit)($19) ($39) ($58) ($78) ($97) ($97) * Includes mobile/manufactured homes     31 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       19    L IBRARY I MPACT F EES     METHODOLOGY   The City of Evanston Library Impact Fees uses the cost recovery and incremental expansion  methodologies. Library impact fees should only be assessed on residential development.  Components of the Library fee include costs for the main Library building and materials  included in the Library’s collections. The main Library was built in 1994 with an expansion  to the children’s area in 2007. A cost recovery approach is used to calculate new growth’s fair  share of the City’s costs for this facility. An incremental approach is used for collection  materials. All costs are allocated 100 percent to residential development.     Figure 11 diagrams the general methodology used to calculate the Library Impact Fee. It is  intended to read like an outline, with lower levels providing a more detailed breakdown of  the impact fee components.  The impact fee is derived from the product of persons per  housing unit (by type of unit) multiplied by the net capital cost per person.  The boxes in the  next level down indicate detail on the components included in the fee.    Figure 11. Library Impact Fee Methodology Chart   LIBRARY  IMPACT FEE  Persons per Housing Unit by   Type of Unit  Multiplied By Net Capital   Cost per Person  Building Cost per Person  Plus Collection Materials  Cost per Person  Minus Principal Payment Credit  Residential   Development  32 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       20  LIBRARY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND COSTS   Library Building     Library impact fees are based on the Evanston Library, constructed in 1994, and the  expansion to the children’s area in 2007. The demand base for the City’s Library facilities is  projected population. Costs are based on original City costs. Because the facility was  oversized and currently has excess capacity, levels of service are based on projected  population in ten years (2017), per the City. This reflects a cost recovery methodology where  new development is buying into excess capacity of existing facilities. The City of Evanston  has 112,000 square feet in its Main Library, serving the entire City. This results in a level of  service of 1.36 square feet per person.      Figure 12 provides levels of service and costs for the Evanston Public Library. The Library  was built in 1994 at a cost of approximately $22 million. In 2007, the City expanded the  Children’s area of the Library at a cost to the City of $1.2 million (the total cost of the  expansion was $2.4 million, with private and other sources). Total cost on which the fee is  calculated is almost $23.5 million. This equates to a per capita cost of $284.39 based on  projected population in 2017. Detail is provided below.    Figure 12. Library Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Current Years Original City Size (SF)*Constructed Cost Evanston Public Library*112,000 1994, 2007 $23,462,200 Totals 112,000 $23,462,200 Population in 2017 82,499 Square Foot Per Capita 1.36 Cost per Capita $284.39 * Inlcudes Childrenʹs Room expansion in 2007  Source: City of Evanston       Library Collection Materials    The Library’s collection includes adult and juvenile books, audio books, digital media,  reference books, periodicals, music and miscellaneous. The total number of current units is  495,354 with a total replacement value of over $10 million. Based on the current estimated  City population of 78,274, this equates to a level of service of 6.33 units per person, or $128.07  33 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       21  per person. Figure 13 provides detail on the current inventory and average unit costs for  each type of material. Unit costs were provided to TischlerBise by City staff.     Figure 13. Library Collection Materials Level of Service Standards Average Item Unit Count Unit Cost Replacement Cost Adult Books 295,483 $19.12 $5,648,500 Juvenile Books 120,933 $13.23 $1,600,400 Audio Books 9,463 $57.07 $540,100 Cassettes/CDs/CD‐ROMs/DVDs/Videos 25,662 $29.05 $745,400 Reference Books 26,462 $47.78 $1,264,300 Periodicals 2,370 $5.74 $13,600 Music 5,837 $14.05 $82,000 Misc 9,144 $14.27 $130,510 Total Materials 495,354 $20.24 $10,024,810 Population in 2007 78,274 Materials Per Person 6.33 Cost per Capita $128.07 Source: City of Evanston       Cost for Impact Fee Study    Included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the Library portion of the impact fees. This is  calculated based on the projected growth in Evanston population over the next three years,  which represents the appropriate amount of time before the fees should be updated to reflect  changes in development and levels of service. The cost per person of $6.15 is derived by  dividing the consultant cost by the projected increase in population over three years. ($7,800  / 1,267 = $6.15.) See Figure 14.    Figure 14. Impact Fee Preparation Cost (Library Portion) Consultant Cost $7,800 Population increase (3 yrs) 1,267 Cost per capita $6.15             34 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       22  CREDIT EVALUATION   The City has outstanding debt for Library improvements that will be retired through  property taxes. Because of this, TischlerBise recommends that a credit be included in the  impact fee for future principal payments on this General Obligation debt. New residential  development in the City of Evanston that will pay Library impact fees will also contribute to  future principal payments paid from property tax revenue.     City staff provided debt service schedules for the current outstanding Library Debt. To  account for the time value of money, annual principal payments per capita are discounted  using a net present value formula based on an estimated average interest rate. A credit is  only necessary for principal payments because interest costs are not added to the impact fees.  Figure 15 shows the credit calculation based on the projected principal payments starting in  fiscal year 2007 through the remainder of each of the bonds’ term. The debt is allocated 100  percent to residential development. The applicable net present value of the credit is $117.28  per person. This will be subtracted from the gross capital cost per demand unit to derive a  net capital cost per person in calculating the maximum supportable fee.     Figure 15. Credit for Future Principal Payments on Library Debt Payment Series 1994 Series 1995 Series 1996 Series 1997 Series 1998 Series 2006 Series 2007 Payment Per Year Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Total Population [1] Person 2007 $300,000 $190,000 $105,000 $250,000 $75,000 $7,969 $0 $927,969 78,274 $11.86 2008 $305,000 $200,000 $110,000 $275,000 $80,000 $8,328 $15,938 $994,266 78,697 $12.63 2009 $325,000 $215,000 $120,000 $290,000 $85,000 $8,702 $16,655 $1,060,358 79,119 $13.40 2010 $340,000 $225,000 $125,000 $310,000 $90,000 $9,094 $17,405 $1,116,499 79,542 $14.04 2011 $360,000 $240,000 $135,000 $330,000 $95,000 $9,503 $18,188 $1,187,691 79,964 $14.85 2012 $375,000 $255,000 $145,000 $350,000 $100,000 $9,931 $19,006 $1,253,937 80,387 $15.60 2013 $400,000 $270,000 $150,000 $370,000 $105,000 $10,378 $19,862 $1,325,239 80,809 $16.40 2014 $20,000 $285,000 $160,000 $395,000 $115,000 $10,845 $20,756 $1,006,600 81,232 $12.39 2015 $300,000 $170,000 $415,000 $120,000 $11,333 $21,690 $1,038,022 81,654 $12.71 2016 $175,000 $440,000 $130,000 $11,843 $22,666 $779,508 82,077 $9.50 2017 $470,000 $130,000 $12,376 $23,685 $636,061 82,499 $7.71 2018 $140,000 $12,933 $24,751 $177,684 82,499 $2.15 2019 $13,515 $25,865 $39,380 82,499 $0.48 2020 $14,123 $27,029 $41,152 82,499 $0.50 2021 $14,758 $28,245 $43,004 82,499 $0.52 2022 $15,422 $29,516 $44,939 82,499 $0.54 2023 $16,116 $30,845 $46,961 82,499 $0.57 2024 $16,842 $32,233 $49,074 82,499 $0.59 2025 $17,599 $33,683 $51,283 82,499 $0.62 2026 $18,391 $35,199 $53,590 82,499 $0.65 2027 $0 $36,783 $36,783 82,499 $0.45 TOTAL $2,425,000 $2,180,000 $1,395,000 $3,895,000 $1,265,000 $250,000 $500,000 $11,910,000 $148.17 Discount Rate 4.0% Net Present Value [2] $117.28 [1] See Appendix for population projections; buildout is assumed by year 2017 [2] To account for the time value of money, total payment per person is discounted using a net present value formula assuming an average interest rate of 4%.  Source: City of Evanston; TischlerBise   35 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       23    SUMMARY OF FACTORS FOR LIBRARY IMPACT FEE   Infrastructure standards used to calculate the Library impact fees are shown in the boxed  area of Figure 16. Impact fees for Libraries are based on household size for three types of  residential units: single‐family detached units, attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in a  building), and attached units (10+ units in a structure). Level of service standards are based  on current costs per person for Library buildings and collection materials as described in the  previous sections and summarized below. Each cost component of the impact fee is shown as  a cost per person.     The total capital cost per person is the sum of the boxed items on the figure for buildings,  materials, and consultant cost ($284.39 + $128.07 + $6.15 = $418.61). As shown, the principal  payment credit ($117.28) is then subtracted from the gross capital cost per person to  determine the net capital cost per person for residential development (i.e., $301.33 per  person).     Figure 16. Library Input Variables INPUT VARIABLES Residential Persons Per Housing Unit Single Family Detached*2.82 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38 Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54 Level Of Service Building Cost Per Person (Cost Recovery)$284.39 Materials Cost Per Person (Incremental)$128.07 Consultant Cost Per Person (Incremental)$6.15 Total Cost Per Person $418.61 Principal Payment Credit Per Person ($117.28) TOTAL NET CAPITAL COST PER PERSON $301.33 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes     36 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       24    MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES FOR LIBRARIES   Figure 17 shows the schedule of maximum allowable impact fees for Libraries in Evanston.  The amounts are calculated by multiplying the persons per housing unit for each unit type  by the net capital cost per person. For example, for a single family detached unit, the persons  per housing unit of 2.82 is multiplied by the net capital cost of $301.33 (from the previous  table) for an impact fee amount of $848 per single family detached housing unit; $715 for per  attached units (townhouses and 2‐9 units in structure); and $463 for attached units of 10+  units in structure.     Figure 17. Library Maximum Allowable Impact Fees by Type of Housing Unit MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPACT FEES Residential Impact Fees Per Housing Unit Single Family Detached*$848 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $715 Attached Units: 10+ Units $463 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes       SERVICE AREA   The impact fees calculated are for the main Library serving the City of Evanston. Therefore,  the service area is the City of Evanston.     37 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       25    CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS   This section summarizes the potential cash flow to the City of Evanston, if the Library impact  fee is implemented at the maximum allowable amounts. The cash flow projections are based  on the assumptions detailed in this study and provide an indication of the impact fee  revenue and capital expenditures necessary to meet the demand for Library facilities brought  about by new development. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows  down, there will be a corresponding change in impact fee revenue and capital costs. The  development projections on which the cash flow summary is based can be found in the  Appendix to this report.      Figure 18 provides a summary of the projected five‐year cash flow from the Library impact  fee and associated capital costs. The impact fee revenue averages $127,000 per year if the fee  is implemented at the maximum allowable level, for a five‐year total of approximately  $635,000. Library capital costs brought about by growth equal an average of $57,000 per year,  or almost $284,000 over 5 years. A surplus is generated due to the cost recovery methodology  used for the Library facilities where new growth will buy into existing capacity of recent  improvements. Revenue generated from impact fees can be used to make debt service  payments on the outstanding library debt.     Figure 18. Cash Flow Summary for Libraries 5‐Year 5‐Year  12 3 4 5Cumulative Average (Current $ in thousands)2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Annual REVENUES LIBRARY 3 Library Fee‐Single Family Detached*$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 4 Library Fee‐Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $161 $32 5 Library Fee‐Attached Units: 10+ Units $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $475 $95 Subtotal Library Fees $127 $127 $127 $127 $127 $635 $127 CAPITAL COSTS LIBRARY Buildings (Cost Recovery)$0$0$0$0$0 $0 $0 Materials $54 $54 $54 $54 $54 $271 $54 Consultant Cost $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $13 $3 Subtotal Library Costs $57 $57 $57 $57 $57 $284 $57 NET CAPITAL FACILITIES CASH FLOW LIBRARY Current $ in thousands Annual Surplus (or Deficit)$70 $70 $70 $70 $70 $70 Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit)$70 $141 $211 $282 $352 $352       38 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       26    I MPLEMENTATION AND A DMINISTRATION     All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation  rate over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual  evaluation and update of impact fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction  costs by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index  (CPI), which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift  Valuation Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and  types of construction. The multipliers can be applied against the calculated impact fee. If cost  estimates change significantly the City should redo the fee calculations.    There are certain accounting procedures that should be followed by the City. For example,  monies received should be placed in a separate fund and accounted for separately and may  only be used for the purposes authorized in the impact fee ordinance. Interest earned on  monies in the separate fund should be credited to the fund.      CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS   Future Revenue Credits    There are three basic approaches used to calculate impact fees and each is linked to different  credit methodology. The first major type of impact fee method is a cost recovery approach.   This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new  development for at least a five to six year time frame.  The rationale for the cost recovery is  that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of the  existing facility.  When using a cost recovery method, it is important to determine whether  new development has already contributed toward the cost of existing public facilities. As  described in this report, outstanding debt exists for Libraries where a cost recovery approach  is used, therefore a credit is necessary and include in the fee calculation.     A second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost  method. This method documents current factors and is best suited for public facilities that  will be expanded incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front‐ end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to  future principal payments on existing debt for public facilities.  A credit is not necessary for  interest payments if interest costs are not included in the impact fees. This type of credit is  39 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       27  necessary and calculated for Parks and Recreation because there is outstanding debt for  capacity expansions calculated under the incremental approach.     A third basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the plan‐based method. This method  is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. The  plan‐based method may be used for public facilities that have commonly accepted service  delivery factors to determine the need for future projects or the jurisdiction plans to  significantly increase the current level of service standards. If a plan‐based approach is used  to derive impact fees, the credit evaluations should focus on future dedicated revenues that  will fund growth‐related capital improvements. This type of methodology is not used in the  fees herein.     Site‐Specific Credits    If a developer constructs a system improvement that was included in the fee calculations, it  will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees in the  area benefiting from the system improvement. Project improvements normally required as  part of the development approval process are not eligible for credits or offsets against impact  fees. Specific policies and procedures related to site‐specific credits or developer  reimbursements for system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that  establishes the City’s fees.     Based on TischlerBise’s experience, it is better for the City to establish a reimbursement  agreement with the developer that constructs a system improvement rather than provide a  credit off of the fee. The latter is often more difficult to administer because it creates unique  fees for specific geographic areas. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a  payback period of no more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the  outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost  incurred for the system improvement. The City of Evanston should only agree to pay the  lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If  the City pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee  revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers  annually according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area.      COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES   The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local  government’s burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a benefit  usually requires communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public  40 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       28  facilities that have distinct geographic service areas.  Consideration of zones will enable the  City to show that developments paying fees are benefiting from the provision of additional  capital improvements.    TischlerBise recommends a citywide fee for all impact fee calculated herein. All  improvements covered under the impact fee program are derived based on citywide  demand and will have a citywide benefit.        41 of 188 IMPACT FEE STUDY: PARKS AND LIBRARIES Evanston, Illinois       A‐1    A PPENDIX: L AND U SE A SSUMPTIONS & D EMOGRAPHICS 42 of 188           MEMORANDUM     TO:  Vincent Jones,  Assistant to the City Manager  City of Evanston, Illinois     FROM:  Julie Herlands  TischlerBise    DATE:  November 29, 2006 (revised October 15, 2007)    SUBJECT: Demographic Data and Development Projections for Impact Fee, Capacity Fee,  and Excise Tax Studies      As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and  development projections that will be used in the Impact Fee, Capacity Fee, and Excise Tax  Studies.  The demographic data estimates for December 1, 2007, will be used in the study  calculations.  The development projections are used solely for the purpose of having an  understanding of the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and capital  expenditures.      Calculations throughout this technical memo are based on an analysis conducted using Excel  software. Results are discussed in the memo using one‐and two‐digit places (in most cases),  which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their  ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not  equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the  report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).          43 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐3      CURRENT POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES   Figure A1 lists recent residential development activity and the current housing unit estimate for  the City of Evanston.  TischlerBise obtained information on recent residential development from  the City of Evanston Planning Division. Using this data, the current number of housing units by  type of unit in the City was estimated. Based on household size characteristics, TischlerBise  recommends using three housing unit categories: (1) Single Family Detached (2) Attached Units:  Townhouses and Multifamily Units with 2‐9 units in structure, and (3) Attached Units:  Multifamily Units with 10 or more units in structure. Based on the information provided by the  City, TischlerBise estimates the number of housing units as of December 2006 in the City to be  33,063, with 9,827 in Single‐Family Detached; 8,891 in Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units  in Structure; and 14,345 in Attached Units: 10+ Units in Structure. Also as shown below, an  average of 374 units per year have been constructed, with the majority in structures with 10 or  more units. City staff projects an estimated 250 units per year to be constructed with 45 low‐ density attached and the remainder in higher density structures. This assumption is used to  project December 2007 housing units and population (discussed below).     Figure A1. Current Estimate of Housing Units Units Added Est. Total Units Added Est. Total Total Added % of Proj. Total UNITS 2000 [1]2000‐04[2]2004 2005‐06 [3]2006 2000‐06 Total Added 2007 [4] Single Family Detached*9,827 0 9,827 0 9,827 0 0% 9,827 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 8,705 149 8,854 37 8,891 186 8% 8,936 Attached Units: 10+ Units 12,285 1,219 13,504 841 14,345 2,060 92% 14,550 Totals 30,817 1,368 32,185 878 33,063 2,246         100%33,313 374            avg annual * Includes mobile/manufactured homes [1] U.S. Census, 2000 [2] Units Constructed/Occupied since 2000; City of Evanston, Planning Division (2005) [3] Units Approved/Under Construction plus Units Approved/Not Under Construction as of July 2005; City of Evanston, Planning Division (2005) [4] Projected units     This information was then used to estimate a current citywide population. Based on the type of  units developed in the City and the average household size by type of unit from the U.S.  Census, TischlerBise estimated the current total City population living in households to be  71,305. Household size by type of unit is shown in Figure A2. Estimated group quarters  population is added to this figure to arrive at a current estimated total City population of  78,274. The estimates for 2007 are shown at the bottom of Figure A2.     44 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐4      Figure A2. Household Size and Current Population/Housing Estimates Units in Renter & Owner Occupied Structure Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Units % of Ttl 1‐Detached 27,612 9,626 9,799 2.82 32% 1‐Attached 3,546 1,433 1,519 2.33 5% Two 7,766 2,702 2,880 2.70 9% 3‐4 4,054 1,568 1,700 2.38 6% 5‐9 5,312 2,506 2,606 2.04 8% 10‐19 5,294 3,048 3,149 1.68 10% 20‐49 8,866 5,312 5,558 1.60 18% 50 or more 4,751 3,428 3,578 1.33 12% Mobile Homes 69 28 28 2.46 0% Other 0 0 0 0.00 0% Total SF3 Sample Data 67,270 29,651 30,817    2.18 100% 100‐Percent Data 67,270 29,651 30,817    2.18 Vacant HU 1,166 2.2687262 Source:  2000 US Census Vacancy Rate 3.78% Persons Per Housing Unit by Type in 2000 Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Unit Mix Single Family Detached* 27,681 9,654 9,827 2.82 32% Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 20,678 8,209 8,705 2.38 28% Attached Units: 10+ Units 18,911 11,788 12,285 1.54 40% Total Less Group Quarters 67,270 29,651 30,817 2.18 100% Group Quarters 6,969 Sample Difference 0 0 0 TOTAL 74,239 29,651 30,817 Estimated Persons Per Housing Unit by Type: December 1, 2007 Persons Hsehlds Hsg Units PPHU Unit Mix Single Family Detached* 27,681 9,455 9,827 2.82 29% Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 21,227 8,598 8,936 2.38 27% Attached Units: 10+ Units 22,398 13,999 14,550 1.54 44% Total Less Group Quarters 71,305 32,053 33,313 2.14 100% Group Quarters 6,969 TOTAL 78,274 32,053 33,313 * Includes Manufactured/Mobile Homes     In addition to estimating population, household size (persons per housing unit (PPHU)) is an  important demographic factor that helps account for variations in service demand by type of  housing. Persons per housing unit for 2007 will be held constant over the projection period  since the fees represent a “snapshot approach” of current levels of service and costs.   45 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐5      POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS TO 2017   Based on discussions with Evanston City Planning staff, TischlerBise recommends projecting  housing unit growth based on an average increase of 250 housing units per year. Evanston staff  anticipates housing construction to moderate somewhat from the pace of approximately 375  units per year over the last 6 years.      Per discussions with Evanston Planning staff, the distribution of types of units is likely to shift  slightly from the past six years to reflect an increased proportion of townhouses / 2‐9  multifamily units. To reflect this trend, 18 percent of new units are assumed to be in the  Attached Townhouse & 2‐9 Units category (up from 8 percent over the past 6 years) with the  remaining 82 percent in the Attached 10+ units category (down from 92 percent). No growth in  single family detached is projected at this time. This equates to a projected average annual  increase of 45 units of townhouses and other attached units in structures with 2‐9 units and 205  attached units in structures with 10 or more units.     Using projected housing units, population is then projected over the next 10 years using  average household size from the 2000 Census as discussed above and shown below. Projected  population in new units is then added to the current population estimate of 78,274. Over the  next ten years, the City is projected to increase its population by approximately 4,225 to 82,499.     Figure A3 shows housing units and population projections through 2017 for Evanston. Group  quarters population is assumed to stay constant over the projection period.     Figure A3. Housing Unit and Population Projections to 2017 As of December 1, ==>  Base Yr. 1 2 345678910 Year =>2000 [1] 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 HOUSING UNITS Total Housing Units 30,817 33,063 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 Housing Unit Distribution Single Family Detached* 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 8,705 8,891 8,936 8,981 9,026 9,071 9,116 9,161 9,206 9,251 9,296 9,341 9,386 Attached Units: 10+ Units 12,285 14,345 14,550 14,755 14,960 15,165 15,370 15,575 15,780 15,985 16,190 16,395 16,600 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 30,817 33,063 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 POPULATION PPHU Single Family Detached*2.82 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 27,681 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 2.38 20,678 21,120 21,227 21,334 21,441 21,547 21,654 21,761 21,868 21,975 22,082 22,189 22,296 Attached Units: 10+ Units 1.54 18,911 22,082 22,398 22,713 23,029 23,344 23,660 23,975 24,291 24,607 24,922 25,238 25,553 Total in Housing Units 67,270 70,883 71,305 71,728 72,150 72,573 72,995 73,418 73,840 74,263 74,685 75,108 75,530 Group Quarters 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 GRAND TOTAL POPULATION 74,239 77,852 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499 * Includes mobile/manufactured homes [1] U.S. Census, 2000   46 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐6      Population and housing unit projections are used solely for the purpose of having an  understanding of the possible future pace of service demands, revenues, and expenditures.  As  these factors will vary to the extent that future development varies, there will be minimal effect  on the amounts of the fee and excise tax calculations.        RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA   For the Road Excise Tax, information on current and projected residential floor area is needed.  Based on the American Housing Survey for the Chicago Metropolitan Area in 2003, the median  square feet of housing per person in the metro area outside the city of Chicago is 727 square  feet. Using this factor along with household size, median square feet by type of unit in this  study can be determined. Based on this information, total estimated residential square footage  can be estimated. Details are provided below.    Figure A4. Residential Floor Area (2007) Residential Median SF/Unit 2007 Units Sq. Ft.  Single Family Detached 2,048 9,827 20,123,731 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 1,727 8,936 15,431,578 Attached Units: 10+ Units 1,119 14,550 16,282,905 Total 51,838,214 Sources: American Housing Survey 2003 (HUD and US Census); TischlerBise       NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS   In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of fees and excise taxes requires  data on employment and nonresidential development in the City of Evanston. For current  employment estimates, TischlerBise obtained employment data for 2006 for the City from ESRI  Business Information Solutions, a private firm specializing in demographic and market data. To  convert employment to gross floor area of nonresidential development, TischlerBise uses  average square feet per employee multipliers. The multipliers are shown in Figure A5 and are  derived from national data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the  Urban Land Institute (ULI).   47 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐7      Figure A5. Floor Area Per Employee ITE Land Use / Size Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee*Dmd Unit** Per Emp Commercial / Shopping Center 820 25K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 110.32 na 3.33 300 820 50K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 86.56 na 2.86 350 820 100K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 67.91 na 2.50 400 820 200K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 53.28 na 2.22 450 820 400K gross leasable area 1,000 Sq Ft 41.80 na 2.00 500 General Office 710 10K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 22.66 5.06 4.48 223 710 25K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 18.35 4.43 4.15 241 710 50K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 15.65 4.00 3.91 256 710 100K gross floor area 1,000 Sq Ft 13.34 3.61 3.69 271 Industrial 770 Business Park***1,000 Sq Ft 12.76 4.04 3.16 317 151 Mini‐Warehouse 1,000 Sq Ft 2.50 56.28 0.04 22,512 150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.96 3.89 1.28 784 140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 3.82 2.13 1.79 558 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 6.97 3.02 2.31 433 Other Nonresidential 720 Medical‐Dental Office 1,000 Sq Ft 36.13 8.91 4.05 247 620 Nursing Home bed 2.37 6.55 0.36 na 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 17.57 5.20 3.38 296 565 Day Care student 4.48 28.13 0.16 na 320 Lodging room 5.63 12.81 0.44 na *  Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. **  Employees per demand unit calculated from trip rates, except for Shopping Center data, which are derived from Development Handbook and Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers , published by the Urban Land Institute. ***  According to ITE, a Business Park is a group of flex‐type buildings served by a common roadway system.  The tenant space includes a variety of uses with an average mix of 20‐30% office/commercial and 70‐80% industrial/warehousing.      The square feet per employee multipliers shown in the last column on the right of Figure A5 are  used to convert employment projections into thousands of square feet (KSF) of nonresidential  floor area.  Shaded items on the above table represent prototypical development types for each  category of land use in the City of Evanston, which will be used in the cash flow analysis to  project expenditures and revenue from future development. For example, in the City of  Evanston, TischlerBise assumes new office development is typically located in a building of  approximately 25,000 to 49,999 square feet.  This size office building has an average of 241  square feet per employee.    48 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐8    ESTIMATED NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA BY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT   To determine nonresidential floor area for major categories of nonresidential development, total  jobs by type of employment are used. The number of jobs in 2006 for each major category of  nonresidential development is shown in Figure A6 below. As noted above, TischlerBise  obtained current estimated number of jobs from ESRI Business Information Solutions. The  estimated number of jobs located in Evanston in 2006 is 41,823. Using employee per square foot  data from Figure A5 and total employment by type as shown in the column labeled “2006 Jobs”  in Figure A6 below, TischlerBise estimated the number of square feet of nonresidential floor  area in the City in 2006 at approximately 11,698,000 square feet in 2006. Nonresidential floor  area for 2007 is based on the assumption that nonresidential development in the City is  projected to increase by 15,000 square feet of retail and 12,000 of office space per year. This  brings the current amount of estimated nonresidential floor area to 11,725,000 square feet. The  average square feet per job is assumed to remain constant through the projection period. Details  are provided in Figure A6.    Figure A6. Estimated Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area for the City of Evanston 2006 Pct at Nonres Square Feet 2006 Nonres Floor 2007 Nonres Floor Jobs* Locations Per Employee Area (rounded)Area** Commercial/Retail  Retail Trade 5,541 Personal Services 5,732 Entertainment/Hospitality Services 970 Subtotal 12,243 29%300 3,673,000 3,688,000 Office/Institutional Finance/Ins./Real Estate 1,724 Health/Legal Services 13,105 Educational Services 8,861 Government 1,126 Subtotal 24,816 59%241 5,981,000 5,993,000 Industrial/Flex Agriculture/Forestry/Mining 220 Construction 1,151 Manufacturing 2,138 Wholesale Trade/Transp/Util 1,212 Subtotal 4,721 11%433 2,044,000 2,044,000 Other/Unclassified 43 0.1% TOTAL at Nonresidential Locations 41,823 100%11,698,000 11,725,000 *  Source:  ESRI Business Information Services **  Projected; City of Evanston and TischlerBise 49 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐9      NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS   Future employment growth and nonresidential development in the City is projected based on  historical trends and discussions with City Planning staff. While a number of large‐scale retail  projects have been constructed in the past 6 years, it is assumed that future retail development  will likely moderate and reflect an average increase of 15,000 square feet per year. Office  development is assumed to reflect an average increase of 12,000 square feet per year to  accommodate such uses as small businesses and medical services. No future industrial  development resulting in additional floor area is assumed at this time. The projected increase in  retail and office square footage is then used to project additional employment using the  employee per square foot data from Figure A5 above. Employment is projected to increase by  approximately 100 jobs per year. Results are shown in Figure A7 below.     Figure A7. Nonresidential Floor Area and Employment Projections to 2017 Base Yr. 1 2 345678910 Year =>2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 SF) SF/Empl Commercial/Retail 300 3,673 3,688 3,703 3,718 3,733 3,748 3,763 3,778 3,793 3,808 3,823 3,838 Office/Institutional 241 5,981 5,993 6,005 6,017 6,029 6,041 6,053 6,065 6,077 6,089 6,101 6,113 Industrial 433 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 TOTAL Floor Area 11,698 11,725 11,752 11,779 11,806 11,833 11,860 11,887 11,914 11,941 11,968 11,995 Employment Commercial/Retail 12,243 12,293 12,343 12,393 12,443 12,493 12,543 12,593 12,643 12,693 12,743 12,793 Office/Institutional 24,816 24,867 24,917 24,967 25,017 25,066 25,116 25,166 25,216 25,266 25,315 25,365 Industrial 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 Other 43 4343434343434343434343 TOTAL Jobs 41,823 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922       SUMMARY   Annual demographic and development projections for the studies are summarized in Figure A8  below. Demographic data estimates for 2007 are used in the fee calculations. The development  projections are used solely for the purpose of having an understanding of the future pace of  service demands and cash flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with  those service demands.  50 of 188 APPENDIX: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS & DEMOGRAPHICS Evanston, Illinois   A‐10      Figure A8. Annual Demand Projections, 2007-2017 Year=>Base Yr.1234 5 678910Avg. Ann. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Increase DEMAND PROJECTIONS (cumulative)  TOTAL POPULATION 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499 422 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 250 TOTAL JOBS 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922 100 TOTAL POPULATION AND JOBS 120,198 120,721 121,243 121,765 122,287 122,810 123,332 123,854 124,377 124,899 125,421 522 Jobs to Housing Unit Ratio 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.20 1.20 Population: Estimated Population in Households 71,305 71,728 72,150 72,573 72,995 73,418 73,840 74,263 74,685 75,108 75,530 422 Population in Group Quarters* 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 6,969 0 Total 78,274 78,697 79,119 79,542 79,964 80,387 80,809 81,232 81,654 82,077 82,499 422 Residential Units SF/Unit Single Family Detached**2,048 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 9,827 0 Attached Units: Townhouse & 2‐9 Units 1,727 8,936 8,981 9,026 9,071 9,116 9,161 9,206 9,251 9,296 9,341 9,386 45 Attached Units: 10+ Units 1,119 14,550 14,755 14,960 15,165 15,370 15,575 15,780 15,985 16,190 16,395 16,600 205 Total 33,313 33,563 33,813 34,063 34,313 34,563 34,813 35,063 35,313 35,563 35,813 250 Residential Floor Area (1,000 SF)51,838 52,145 52,452 52,759 53,066 53,373 53,680 53,987 54,295 54,602 54,909 307 Employment By Type at Nonres Locations Commercial 12,293 12,343 12,393 12,443 12,493 12,543 12,593 12,643 12,693 12,743 12,793 50 Office/Institutional 24,867 24,917 24,967 25,017 25,066 25,116 25,166 25,216 25,266 25,315 25,365 50 Industrial/Flex 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 4,721 0 Other 4343434343 4343434343430 Total 41,924 42,024 42,124 42,223 42,323 42,423 42,523 42,623 42,722 42,822 42,922 100 Nonres Floor Area (1,000 SF):SF/Employee Commercial KSF 300 3,688 3,703 3,718 3,733 3,748 3,763 3,778 3,793 3,808 3,823 3,838 15 Office/Institutional KSF 241 5,993 6,005 6,017 6,029 6,041 6,053 6,065 6,077 6,089 6,101 6,113 12 Industrial/Flex KSF 433 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 2,044 0 Total 11,725 11,752 11,779 11,806 11,833 11,860 11,887 11,914 11,941 11,968 11,995 27 Total Floor Area: Residential and Nonresidential (1,000 SF)63,563 63,897 64,231 64,565 64,899 65,233 65,567 65,901 66,236 66,570 66,904 334 Annual Increases 06‐07 07‐08 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14 14‐15 15‐16 16‐17 Avg Anl Total Population 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 422 Housing Units 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Jobs at Nonres Locations 101 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Commercial KSF***15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Office KSF***12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Industrial KSF***00000 000000 0 * Census 2000 group quarters population is assumed to remain constant over projection period. ** Includes mobile/manufactured homes     51 of 188 Impact Fees for Subdivisions or Development Projects Survey November 2017 Municipality Does your municipality assess impact fees for subdivisions or development projects? If so, please indicate the type and circumstance under which such fees are assessed? In addition to any school and park fees collected on behalf of the school and park districts, if applicable, are there any other impact fees related to municipal infrastructures and their legacy costs to maintain (water, roads/traffic impact, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, or other similar) that are assessed through the development/construction process? These fees would be in addition to the tap fees or other building permit costs assessed therein. Please provide either a link to the municipal code or fee schedule or an electronic copy of the relevant code section. Arlington Heights Yes. Any subdivision which will create new residential lots must provide impact fees if they do not dedicate the required land for parks and schools. The Village requires Library impact fees and recently has been requiring a "detention area maintenance fee" during the subdivision process for residential subdivisions. This fee is not codified in our subdivision code but is a fee that has recently been required by the Village Board. See attached. Formula for impact fee calculations can be found in Chapter 29 of the Municipal Code, Section 29-401. http://ldms.vah.com/weblink/Brows e.aspx?cr=1 Barrington Residential subdivisions. Residential subdivisions. fees collected for park, fire, library and schools. No. Impact fee ordinance attached. Des Plaines Yes. We have a newly created Park District impact fee for residential developments over 15 units, but that is it; otherwise there are no other impact fees. No. Elk Grove Upon annexation, donation of 10% of real estate for park land or cash fair market value equivalent. No other impact fees. Park. No - just typical connection charges. Evanston No. No. Glenview Yes. A land donation is required per ordinance for every new dwelling unit. In lieu of a land donation acceptable to the elementary school district, secondary school district, and/or park district, the developer may make a cash donation in lieu of a land donation, in accordance with a schedule based upon the type of dwelling unit & number of bedrooms. The only impact fees other than school & park donations are collected at the time of annexation in accordance with an annexation agreement. http://www.glenview.il.us/governm ent/Documents/SCHOOL%20AND %20PARK%20DONATIONS.pdf Grayslake Yes.School, park, library and fire. Not usually.See attached. Hoffman Estates Yes. Road Improvement Impact Fees and municipal impact fees (typically tied to a annexation agreement). Road Improvement Impact Fees. http://www.hoffmanestates.org/gov ernment/development- services/transportation- engineering/funding-sources Lincolnshire Yes. The Village assesses impact fees for residential developments only. The Fire District which is a separate taxing body assesses impact fees on all types of developments, including commercial and industrial. We also assess library impact fees and connection fees for water and sewer. The Fire District assesses a separate "emergency service" impact fee. Village impact fees code section: https://lincolnshireil.gov/sitemedia/ documents/quick_links/village- code/title-7/code0707.pdf Connection Fees (see Section 5-3- 4): https://lincolnshireil.gov/sitemedia/ documents/quick_links/village- code/title-5/code0503.pdf The Fire District assesses their fees by separate ordinance. Morton Grove No. No. http://forms.mortongroveil.org/cod e/index.php?ti=12&ch=16&ar=0&s c=7 Niles No.No. Rolling Meadows Yes. New residential subdivisions and planned developments - impact fees are taken for the school districts and park district. No. https://library.municode.com/il/rolli ng_meadows/codes/code_of_ordi nances?nodeId=COOR_CH98SU _ARTIIIPL_DIV4DEST_S98- 167PUSP Schaumburg Yes. Please see pages 16 and 17 in the attachment titled "Development Review Application" for applicable types and circumstances for development project fees. Please see page 13 in the attachment titled "Teardown and Replacement Plan" for residential rebuild fees. Please see Section 41.01 - Village Fee Schedule. See attached. 152 of 188 Impact Fees for Subdivisions or Development Projects Survey November 2017 Municipality Does your municipality assess impact fees for subdivisions or development projects? If so, please indicate the type and circumstance under which such fees are assessed? In addition to any school and park fees collected on behalf of the school and park districts, if applicable, are there any other impact fees related to municipal infrastructures and their legacy costs to maintain (water, roads/traffic impact, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, or other similar) that are assessed through the development/construction process? These fees would be in addition to the tap fees or other building permit costs assessed therein. Please provide either a link to the municipal code or fee schedule or an electronic copy of the relevant code section. Streamwood Yes. New construction of residential units. Yes. 8-3-1-4: WATER CONNECTION CHARGES D. Special Fee For New Residential: In addition to the routine connection fee provided in subsection A of this section, a special water system connection fee has been established for each new residential dwelling unit for all those premises connecting to the village of Streamwood water system in the amount of one thousand two hundred thirty five dollars ($1,235.00). (Ord. 2006-1, 1-5-2006). Vernon Hills Yes. For school and park with relation to residential developments. No. See attached. 253 of 188 Municipal Impact Fee SurveyAugust 2017MunicipalitySingle-Family Multi-Family Commercial4. Do you collect a single-family impact fee? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom More Schools Parks Library Traffic ArtAffordable Housing Storm water Other CommentsArlington Heights Yes.SchoolsParksLibraryAffordable HousingSchoolsParksLibraryAffordable Housing storm waterTeardown: YesNew Construction: YesAs described above.Schools- $580.00 Yes per above.Barrington Yes.SchoolsParksLibraryFire DistrictSchoolsParksLibraryFire DistrictTeardown: No.New Construction: Yes, if newly platted lots. Yes.Schools - $1,296.68Parks - $3,953.32Library - $176.49Fire District - $302.55Schools - $5,096.94Parks - $5,682.04Library - $253.66Fire District - $434.85Schools - $8,595.65Parks - $7,377.44Library - $329.35Fire District - $564.60Schools - $8,595.65Parks - $7,377.44Library - $329.35Fire District - $564.60 Yes.Schools - $28.04Parks - $3,445.68Library - $153.83Fire District - $263.70Schools - $1,230.01Parks - $3,751.44Library - $167.48Fire District - $287.12Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95Schools - $3,327.00Parks - $5,983.88Library - $267.14Fire District - $457.95 No.BartlettResidential DevelopmentsSchools Parks Library Fire and Village Schools Parks Library Fire and Village Traffic Teardown: No.New Construction: Yes with some exceptions on date of the lot creation. Yes. N/A.Schools- $4,960.23Parks - $3,875.00 Library - $447.95 Fire and Village - $3,851.50 Schools- $6,071.07Parks - $4,087.50 Library - $472.52 Fire and Village - $4,062.72Schools- $7,976.33Parks - $4,400.00Library - $543.32 Fire and Village - $4,671.50Schools- $9,017.92Parks - $5,200.00Library - $601.12Fire and Village - $5,168.47Yes but fees differ depending on type of multi-family (Townhomes, Apartments, Condos, etc.)No.School land and School Cash Different Values.10 acres per 1,000 residents. 144.50/capita. N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.710.54/capita, Police = 332.10/capita, Fire = 199.78/capita.Attached is the Land Donation Ordinance with example cost charts for each individual unit (pg. 22)Des PlainesFee-in-Lieu of dedication of land. Parks Parks ParksTeardown: NoNew Construction: Yes Yes.Parks- $2,218Parks- $3,188Parks- $4,140Parks- $4,147 Yes.Parks - $1,312 Parks- $2,189Parks- $2,631Parks- $3,459 Yes Parks - $1,933Parks - $2,105Parks - $3,3585.5 acres/1,000 population Land Value 200,000 per acre.Highland Park Yes.School Parks Library School Parks Library No.Teardown: YesNew Construction: Yes Yes.School-0 Parks-0Library-0 School- $3,000.00 Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $460.00School- $8,000.00 Parks- $5,000.00 Library- $661.00 School- $8,500.00 Parks- $5,000 Library- $859.00 School- $8,500.00 Parks- $5,000 Library- $859.00 Yes.School- $55.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $401.00School- $2,350.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $437.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00School- $5,500.00Parks- $4,500.00 Library- $697.00 No.See attached. See attached. See attached.Please see attachment on how impact fees are calculated.Hoffman Estates Yes.School Parks TrafficSchool Parks Traffic TrafficTeardown: NoNew Construction: YesFor roads - but does not vary by # of bedrooms; value depends on land value as determined through Naperville formula.Roads - but does not vary by # of bedrooms. It depends on the land value as determined through the Naperville formula.Roads.Naperville formula.Per State Statute.Road Improvement Impact Fee sample table.NilesNo.No.No.No.Teardown: NoNew Construction: NoNo.No.No.Northbrook Yes.School Parks Library School Parks Library TrafficTeardown: No.New Construction: Net increase in new lots/units created.Yes.Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $4,216.00Parks - $7,223.00Library - $290.00Schools - $6,440.00Parks - $9,410.00Library - $378.00Schools - $4,612.00Parks - $9,425.00Library - $378.00 Yes.Schools - $23.00Parks - $4,395.00Library - $176.00Schools - $996.00Parks - $4,785.00Library - $192.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Schools - $2,777.00Parks - $7,633.00Library - $306.00Yes for traffic - variable rate per square foot based on zones established.See attached. See attached. See attached. See attached.Rolling Meadows YesSchools ParksSchools Parks No.Teardown: NoNew Construction: YesYes.Schools- N/A Parks- $796.00 - attached.Schools- $503.00 detached/ $445.00 attached. Parks- $1,470.00 detached/$1,536 attached.Schools- $1,296 detached/ $676.00 attachedParks- $2,117 detached/$1,766 attached.Schools- $2,237 detached/ $1,377 attached Parks- $2,722 detached/$2,467Schools- $1,568 detached.Parks- $2,668 detached. Yes.Schools- N/A Parks- $1,012.00Schools- $311.00 Parks- $1,294.00Schools- $836.00Parks- $1,713.00N/A. N/A. No.N/A.N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A.SchaumburgYes, see attached.Teardown: No.New Construction: YesSee attached.WheelingYes, please see attached ordinance.Wilmette No.No.No.No.Teardown: No.New Construction: NoNo.No.No.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.N/A.1. Does your community collect impact fees for development projects?5. If yes, what is your single-family impact fee?7. If yes, what is your multi-family impact fee?10. What is your impact fee formula?9. If yes, what is your commercial impact fee rate or formula?6. Do you collect a multi-family impact fee? 8. Do you collect a commercial impact fee? 3. Do you collect impact fees for single-family?2. Do you Collect impact fees for the following:154 of 188 For City Council meeting of May 21, 2018 Item SP2 West Evanston Form-Based Code – Impact on Potential New Development For Discussion To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Johanna Leonard, Community Development Director Sarah Flax, Housing & Grants Coordinator Paul Zalmezak, Economic Development Manager Scott Mangum, Planning and Zoning Administrator Subject: Implementation of West Evanston Form-Based Code and Impact on Potential New Development Date: May 17, 2018 Recommended Action: Staff seeks direction on making zoning changes to the West Evanston Overlay district in order to preserve community-driven desires for urban form while encouraging the sustainable redevelopment of underutilized or vacant properties. Funding Source: Not applicable. Livability Benefits: Built Environment: Provide compact and complete streets and neighborhoods Summary: In 2006, the City engaged consultants to create a master plan (West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Services) for the reuse of property along the former Mayfair line. The former rail right of way and adjacent industrial properties stretches from the intersection of Green Bay Road and Simpson Street to the far southwest quadrant of the City. The engagement of the consultants followed the creation of the West Evanston Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. The development of the master plan also followed a moratorium on the redevelopment of these industrial parcels until a plan that created street connectivity and development that was in-step with the desires of the neighborhood could be developed. The study area was divided into two sections, the area along this industrial corridor (between Church and Simpson Streets) and the area between Church and Main Streets. The focus of this memorandum is the former. Memorandum 55 of 188 Based on a series of community meetings, the consultants developed proposals for the land use of the areas between Simpson and Church Streets that were formally commercial and industrial. The master plan was adopted by the City Council in May of 2007. West Evanston Overlay District The master plan recommended codification of the plan concepts as a form-based code (FBC) or zoning to support the desired development outcomes for this area. Particularly important was the installation and reconnection of the street grid to the surrounding neighborhood. Following nine meetings of the Plan Commission in 2007-08, the underlying zoning changes and the overlay district were adopted by the City Council in January 2009. The overlay district is a form-based code, which dictates the form of the urban environment over the use of the space and is popular for guiding areas subject to new development. West Evanston’s Overlay District encompasses the area of the West Evanston plan inclusive of the area between Simpson Street and Church Street. The approved ordinance and the associated zoning requirements for the district are attached to this memorandum. In summary, key elements of the zoning changes included: 1) Converting properties that were previously zoned for C2 and I2 districts to B2 and R4 districts. 2) Creation of new WE1 Transitional district which was applied to three smaller areas. 3) Creation of an overlay district applied to the entire area that guided building typology, new street development and other urban elements. The overlay district includes the following for future property development and utilization: ● New development would need to comply with the use, building type, parking, and landscaping requirements of the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District.” Uses for sites are specific and include specific typology for development (i.e. apartment or townhome buildings at a certain height). ● In the event a property owner or tenant sought to continue to operate a property as use that was permitted under C2 or I2 zoning designation, this was permitted if (a) a continuation of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property as of the date of adoption of the ordinance establishing the West Evanston Overlay District, or (b) determined by the Zoning Administrator to be of the same or similar type and intensity of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property, with no substantially different or substantially greater off-site impacts. Implementation following Adoption: Since the time of the adoption of the zoning changes, the only redevelopment of properties inclusive of this plan include: 1) Emerson Square project; 2) Y.O.U. building at 1911 Church Street; and 2) completion of the Church Street Village townhome project (which was not subject to the overlay district since it had started prior to the adoption of the code). The Emerson Square and Y.O.U. projects have complied with the Overlay District regulations and have been generally well received. 56 of 188 Anticipated redevelopment of the additional parcels has not occurred. Over the years as developers have inquired about properties available for redevelopment, the feedback to staff and local elected officials has been that the current zoning creates challenges for redevelopment. Cited challenges have included the form-based code elements of the zoning and the required street layout/restoration, the housing typology does not match what the market can support, and the number of units required to make a project feasible is not permitted by the zoning. These discussions have been generally conceptual and have not included any formal submission of plans or further consideration of property redevelopment. The amount of new public infrastructure contemplated by the plan is complicated by the fact that the West Evanston TIF was created at the peak of the housing market, and with the decline in property values has not generated sufficient tax increment to assist in the public streets, alleys, and greenway that would tie together neighborhoods now separated by the industrial properties along the former right-of-way. Another challenge to development has been the lack of land assemblage large enough to provide for the integrated development desired. However, staff is aware of several sizeable development parcels that are either on the market or subject to real estate contract negotiations. The properties involved include a sizeable portion of the WE Overlay and decisions on the future of the WE Overlay could determine whether development occurs and how well that development executes the goals of the master plan and zoning overlay. Background: Form-Based Code (FBC) Zoning is a form of zoning code that focuses on how the land is organized within an urban space (sidewalks, alleys, streets, public squares, green spaces, etc.) as opposed to how the land is used (residential single family, mixed use, etc.). The Form-Based Codes Institution has a volume of information on FBCs. It defines FBC as, “A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation. The illustration on the following page from Lafayette, Louisiana’s code highlights FBC and how the code dictates desired outcomes for development through private investment that support public realm goals for urban design and sustainability. 57 of 188 The use of the modern application of FBC is relatively recent in the world of urban planning. While urban spaces for centuries have utilized a form over use model for planning activities, the application and use of using form to guide planning and zoning is has more recent application. A popular example cited of an early use of FBCs was in Seaside, Florida. The FBC developed by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk designated an urban form for how a new town would be developed in the early 1980s. Following the plan, developers created the spaces and places that followed the form of the code, but included individual design choices that created a unique and celebrated urban space. Following the success of the private application of Seaside, more communities adopted form-based codes. In the early 2000s, the Form-Based Code Institution was established as a clearinghouse of sorts for communities, practitioners, and educators to utilize to share and compare information on various codes. 58 of 188 As studied, FBCs continue to be a “work in progress”. They require significant implementation and have not been found to be the appropriate application for every community. As noted in an October 2016 Planning article, “A Crack in the Code” (attached to this memorandum), in the over 20,000 municipalities across the United States, only 600 have adopted or are in the process of adopting FBCs. One challenge to the use of these codes is that they are often costly to develop and implement for municipalities. Additionally, FBCs are not always the “silver bullet” that is needed to create good urban spaces in communities or do not connect well with existing codes and plans. The Planning article notes that some communities are taking the “form elements” of codes and putting them into the zoning code, while maintaining the community’s existing code. Examples of this type of incorporation could include removal of setback minimums and build-to lines to requirements on where a building can be sited on a site, where parking is to be located, and minimum heights of buildings. The new code, adopted in 2009, incorporates strong form elements, including a shift from setback minimums to build-to-lines, and from a focus on use to building size, placement, and massing. A two-story minimum and requirement to put parking behind or on the side of buildings mitigate the potential damage caused by strip mall style development. This “new” approach has traveled to national organizations focused on creating good urban spaces. The Congress for the New Urbanism launched the Project for Code Reform which focuses on incremental changes in local zoning codes to produce desired changes to the urban environment to create “great spaces.” As noted in the article in the link above, many codes seek to overhaul an entire code and can result in outcomes that create a challenging and arduous process without desired outcomes of good urban space. A matrix developed for the Project for Code Reform highlights some of the small steps that can be undertaken when looking at how small changes can be made to the zoning code to achieve desired community outcomes. This matrix is attached to this memorandum. Tactical urbanism, a term used to describe pilot projects that are often temporary in the urban environment, is a tool for testing out form-based ideas that might later be utilized and implemented in the zoning code. The graphic above, from the Congress for New Urbanism’s Project for Code Reform, illustrates the steps associated with this process. As more FBCs are implemented across the United States, additional research and study has examined their relative success and how well they achieve community goals. A recent Journal of the American Planning Association article, “Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development: Insights From Cities in Southern California”, authored by Ajay Garde and Cecilia Kim noted that in comparing conventional zoning codes and FBCs, “[The] form-based and conventional zoning regulations that integrate the largest number of LEED-ND criteria to the strongest extent represent examples of best practices. Cities can add even more LEED-ND or related 59 of 188 sustainability criteria to [zoning codes] further promote sustainable development.” LEED-ND criteria include provisions and standards for developing sustainable urban environments. The full journal article is attached to this memorandum. LEED-ND is a certification system offered through the U.S. Green Building Council. It addresses specific characteristics for neighborhood development or redevelopment that support sustainable places. Future Considerations for FBCs in Evanston: As a primarily urban built environment, Evanston offers an ideal environment for the use and implementation of FBCs. However, the codes must be designed to reflect current market conditions, as well as local community goals for sustainability, affordable housing, and stabilizing neighborhoods, and must offer flexibility to promote and attract creativity from the development community. Potential next steps to encourage new development in the areas identified in the West Evanston Master Plan could include revisions to the overlay district to support new development and unique styles of housing that adapt to current market demands (i.e. small lot houses, smaller multi-family units, and other housing types not contemplated in the mid-2000s). Attachments: -Ordinance 127-O-08, West Evanston Zoning Changes (FBC) -Planning, “A Crack in the Code” Article -Project for Code Reform Matrix -Journal of American Planning Association article, “Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development: Insights From Cities in Southern California” 60 of 188 1/26/2009 11/14/2008 127-0-08 AN ORDINANCE Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance by Adding Section 6-15-15, "oWE West Evanston Overlay District" and Section 6-15-16, "WE1 West Evanston Transitional District" 61 of 188 The intent of the oWE West Evanston Overlay District is to implement the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan document, adopted by the Evanston City Council on May 14,2007. To accomplish said intent, the Overlay District employs form-based zoning,also known as form- based code, to regulate the redevelopment of what is commonly referred to as West Evanston. Said code, as may be amended from time to time,is hereby incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance by reference and shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The West Evanston Overlay District shall be designated by the City Council and shown as an overlay to the underlying districts with the designation "oWE" on the City Zoning Map. 62 of 188 The WE1 West Evanston Transitional District is intended to allow the continued operation and expansion of existing light manufacturing, light industrial, and commercial uses in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on nearby properties, and permits the redevelopment of surrounding areas in accordance with: (i) the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Project for the West Evanston Tax Increment Financing District,adopted by the City pursuant to Ordinance 102-0-05, as amended by Amendment No.1 adopted by the City pursuant to Ordinance 7-0-08; and (ii) the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan,adopted by the City on May 14,2007. The WE1 West Evanston Transitional District is also intended to ensure any abandonment,extended discontinuance of operations, or substantial change in use of the sites used for light manufacturing, light industrial, or commercial uses leads to the redevelopment of such sites for residential and mixed-use purposes in accordance with the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan. (A) The WE1-B2 Sub-district includes the properties within the WE1 District designated for rezoning to the B2 District in the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan. (B) The WE1-R4 Sub-district includes the properties within the WE1 District designated for rezoning to the R4 District in the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan. 63 of 188 (A)Within both the WE1-82 and WE1-R4 Sub-districts,any use permitted in the 12District pursuant to Subsection 6-14-3-2 of this Title, but only if such use is either: a continuation of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property as of the date of adoption of the ordinance establishing the WE1 District; or determined by the Zoning Administrator to be of the same or similar type and intensity of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property, with no substantially different or substantially greater off-site impacts. For purposes of this Chapter,these uses are referred to as "Existing 12Uses." (8)Within the WE1-R4 Sub-district only, any use permitted in the C2 District pursuant to Subsection 6-10-4-2 of this Title, but only if such use is:(a) a continuation of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property as of the date of adoption of the ordinance establishing the WE1 District,or (b) determined by the Zoning Administrator to be of the same or similar type and intensity of a Permitted Use existing on a particular property, with no substantially different or substantially greater off-site impacts. For purposes of this Chapter, these uses are referred to as "Existing C2 Uses." 1.is permitted in either: the 82 District pursuant to Subsection 6-9-3-2 of this Title; or the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title,"West Evanston Zoning Overlay District",pursuant to the regulating plans set forth in Chapter 6-15- 15;and 2.complies with the use, building type, parking, and landscaping requirements of the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District." 1.is permitted in either: the R4 District pursuant to Subsection 6-8-5-2 of this Title; or the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title,"West Evanston Zoning Overlay District",pursuant to the regulating plans set forth in Chapter 6-15- 15;and 64 of 188 2. complies with the use, building type,parking,and landscaping requirements of the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title,"West Evanston Zoning Overlay District." The following uses may be allowed in the WE1 District,subject to the provisions set forth in Section 6-3-5,"Special Uses", of this Title: (A) Within the WE1-R4 Sub-district only, any use allowed as a Special Use in the C2 District, but only if such use is a continuation of an approved Special Use existing on a particular property as of the date of adoption of the ordinance establishing the WE1 District.For purposes of this Chapter, such uses are referred to as "Existing Special Uses" and existing 12Uses, existing C2 Uses, and existing Special Uses are collectively referred to as "Existing Uses." 1. is allowed as a Special Use in either:the 82 District pursuant to Subsection 6-9-3-3 of this Title; or the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District", pursuant to the regulating plans set forth in Chapter 6-15-15; and 2. complies with the use, building type,parking,and landscaping requirements of the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District." 1. is allowed as a Special Use in either: the R4 District pursuant to Subsection 6-8-5-3 of this Title;or the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District", pursuant to the regulating plans set forth in Chapter 6-15-15; and 2. complies with the use, building type, parking, and landscaping requirements of the District mapped for a particular site under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title,"West Evanston Zoning Overlay District." 65 of 188 (0)Throughout the WE1 District, any Special Use substituted for an existing Special Use pursuant to Subsection 6-3-5-16 of this Title. (A) Subject to Subsection (B) below, Existing Uses may continue in operation, and shall not be deemed nonconforming under any provision of this Title. However,properties containing an Existing Use shall not contain any new or additional use,unless the new or additional use is allowed in the WE1 District as either a Permitted Use under Subsection 6-15-16-3 or a Special Use under Subsection 6-15-16-4. Existing 12 Uses shall comply with all requirements applicable to uses in the 12District pursuant to Sections 6- 14-1 and 6-14-3 of this Title. Existing C2 Uses and Existing Special Uses shall comply with all requirements applicable to uses in the C2 District pursuant to Sections 6-10-1 and 6-10-4 of this Title,as well as the requirements of any Special Use approval applicable to the property. (B) An Existing Use shall be deemed discontinued if: (i) the use or occupancy of the structure is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive months with no ongoing attempts to sell or lease the property for a permitted or Special Use under this Chapter; or (ii) failure to resume the use or occupancy within eighteen (18) months, even though there may be ongoing efforts to sell or lease the property for a permitted or Special Use under this Chapter.The City Council may, in its discretion,grant an extension to the foregoing eighteen (18) month period if it determines the applicant has used reasonable diligence to sell or lease the property for a permitted or Special Use during such period. If an Existing Use is discontinued,any subsequent use or occupancy of the property shall only be in accordance with the following requirements: 1. For properties within the WE1-B2 Sub-district,the property shall only be used and occupied for a Permitted Use meeting all requirements of Subsection 6-15-16-3 (C) of this Chapter or a use allowed as a Special Use meeting all requirements of Subsection 6-15-16-4 (B) of this Chapter; and 2. For properties within the WE1-R4 Sub-district,the property shall only be used and occupied for a Permitted Use meeting all requirements of Subsection 6-15-16-3(D) of this Chapter or a use allowed as a Special Use meeting all requirements of Subsection 6-15-16-4(C) of this Chapter. 66 of 188 6-15-16-6: EXPANSION, STRUCTURAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING USES: (A) Existing Uses may only be expanded,structurally altered,or reconstructed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on adjacent properties and if: 1. the expanded,altered, or reconstructed facilities shall contain a use or uses that are allowed in the WE1 District as either a Permitted Use under Subsection 6-15-16-3 or a Special Use under Subsection 6-15-16-4; 2. for Existing 12 Uses,the expanded,altered, or reconstructed facilities comply with all requirements applicable to uses in the 12 District pursuant to Sections 6-14-1 and 6-14-3 of this Title; 3. for Existing C2 Uses and Existing Special Uses,the expanded, altered, or reconstructed facilities comply with all requirements applicable to uses in the C2 District pursuant to Sections 6-10-1 and 6-10-4 of this Title; 4. for Existing Special Uses, an amended Special Use approval is obtained pursuant to Chapter 6-3-5 of this Title,or the Special Use is approved by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Subsection 6- 3-5-16 of this Title; 5.the expanded,altered,or reconstructed facilities shall not exceed forty feet (40') in height; 6. the expanded,altered, or reconstructed facilities shall not have, in comparison with the prior permitted facilities on the site: (a) An increase in degree of noise or glare detectable at the property line,as validated by an analysis of existing and proposed conditions submitted by the applicant and approved by the Zoning Administrator; or (b) An increase in outside storage or loading visible from the right-of-way; 7. the expanded,altered or reconstructed facilities shall comply with all other requirements of this Code including, but not limited to,the Environmental Control Code set forth in Section 4-10-10 of this Code and the prohibition on nuisances set forth in Section 8-4-1 of this Code. 67 of 188 (8) In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in Section 4-17-6 of this Code, the site plan and appearance review for any new building or structure or modifications to the exterior of an existing structure in the WE 1 District shall include an evaluation of whether the proposed site and building plan fulfills the objectives of the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan, and conforms to the extent possible, considering the objectives of the proposed expansion, to the building type standards and landscape standards of comparable building types and lots under Chapter 6-15-15 of this Title, "West Evanston Zoning Overlay District". 68 of 188 Introduced:~IL ,2009 Approved: Adopted:~212 ,2009 Approve<!J"rt0 form:V- -~~Elke s:=r;ber-~ First Assistant Corporation Counsel 69 of 188 70 of 188 Section 6-15-15: West Evanston Zoning Overlay for Redevelopment Areas Prepared for: City of Evanston 71 of 188 City of Evanston 2100 Ridge Avenue Evanston,IL 60201 FARR ASSOCIATES The Monadnock Building 53 West]ackson Boulevard, Suite 650 Chicago, lllinois 60604 312/408-1661 72 of 188 Table of Contents IV.General Building Type Standards 23 V.Base Types 28 VI. Cap Types 30 VII.Measuring Transparency32 VIII.Measuring Height &Coverage 33 IX.Mixed Use Building 34 X.Flex Apartment Building 36 XI.Apartment Building 38 XII.Flat Building 40 XIII.Townhouse 1 42 XlV. Townhouse 11 .44 XV.Townhouse 111..46 XVI.Small-Lot House .48 XVII.Iconic Building 50 XVIII.Parking Lot Frontage Buffer 55 XIX.Side &Rear Yard Landscape Buffer 56 XX. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping 58 XXI.Screening of Open Storage, Refuse Areas, &Utility Appurtenances 59 XXII.Street Trees 60 73 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay I.Introduction 1"I•l • -.1f ~ ~ .1( 74 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay I. Introduction 1. The provisions of this Section [6-15-15] shall serve as a supplement to all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Evanston City Code. Where a conflict exists between the provisions of this Section [6-15-15] and those requirements applicable to uses and structures in the B2, R4, or R5 zoning districts, the provisions of this Overlay District shall control. Where a conflict or inconsistency exists between the provisions of this Section [6-15-15] and those of Section [6-15-16], West Evanston Transitional District, the provisions of Section [6-16-16] shall control.Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Section [6-15-15], the requirements of this Overlay District shall only apply to uses, lots, and structures located within the West Evanston Transitional District to the extent the application of this Overlay District or its requirements are explicitly referenced in Section [6-15-16]. 2. This document provides the development regulations for the Redevelopment Area Overlay defined in Figure I-A. Except as provided above in paragraph LA.1, all parcels within the defined boundaries are required to follow the regulations included herein. The intent of this Overlay District is to require implementation of the West Evanston Physical Planning and Urban Infill Design Master Plan document, adopted by the Evanston City Council on May 14, 2007. These definitions are specific to the regulations outlined for the Overlay District and are in addition to the definitions in the Evanston Zoning Ordinance. The defined terms will appear with the first letter(s) capitalized throughout this Section. 1. Base Type. The permitted treatment types of the Ground Story Fa~ade of a structure. 2. Building Coverage. This term is defined in Subsection VIILB.l of this Overlay. 3. Building Type. A structure defined by the combination of configuration, form and function. 4. Build-to Zone. An area in which the front or side Facade of a building shall be placed; it mayor may not be located directly adjacent to a property line. The zone dictates the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a property line. 5. Cap Type. The detail at the top of a building that finishes a Facade, including a pitched roof with various permitted slopes, and a parapet. 6. Car Court. A driveway area, surrounded on at least three sides with building, providing entrances into personal garages and allowing vehicular turnaround. 7.ComerBuilding. A building constructed on the corner lot of a block to hold the spatial definition of an intersection, often referred to as "holding the corner." 8. Entrance, Primary. Also referred to as main or principal entrance. The principal point of access for pedestrians into a building is typically located on the front and corner side Facade. 9. Expression Line. A three-dimensional, linear element,horizontal or vertical, protruding or indented at least a quarter (1/4) inch from the exterior Facade of a building. May be decorative or structural.Element typically delineates the floors or stories of a building. 1O.Fa~ade. The exterior face of a building, including, but not limited to the wall, windows, window sills, doorways, and design elements such as horizontal and vertical Expression Lines, and a parapet. 11. Fa~ade, Front. Any building face adjacent to the front property line. 12. Green Roof. A roof that absorbs or retains stormwater by providing a landscape surface and filtering system. Considered a Semi-Pervious surface. 13. Gross Square Footage. Gross square footage of a building is the total area of all floors as measured between the outside surfaces of all exterior walls. 14. Ground Story. The first floor of a building that is level to or slightly elevated above the sidewalk, excluding basements and cellars. 15. Half-Stories. This term is defined in Subsection VIII.A.2 of this Overlay. 16. "Hold the Comer." Building up to both the front and side property lines on a corner lot, in a sense holding down or anchoring the corner. 17. Impervious Surface. Any hard-surfaced, man-made area that absorbs or retains less than 20% of water, including, but not limited to, building roofs (not Green Roofs), parking, driveways, and other paved areas. 18. Impervious Site Coverage. This term is defined in Subsection VIII.B.2 of this Overlay. 19. Open Space. Publicly or privately owned land, such as a plaza, playground, or park, that contains no buildings and is designed and used either for passive or active recreational or civic uses. 20. Overlay District. The West Evanston Overlay District established by this Section [6-15-15]. 75 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay I.Introduction 21.Parking Lot.An area of a parcel that is reserved for parking or storage of more than two of the following: motor vehicles, trailers, or boats. 22.Pervious Surface.An area maintained in its natural condition or covered by a material that permits the infiltration or percolation into the ground of at least 80%of water. 23.Principal Building.Also referred to as the principal structure or building on a lot; contains the dominant use of the lot.It is always located toward the front of the lot in the front Build-to Zone or behind the front yard Setback. 24.Regulating Plan.A plan that identifies the districts and the standards by which a lot or a street may be developed. 25.Semi-Pervious.A material that allows at least 40% absorption of water into the ground or plant material, such as pervious pavers,gravel or Green Roofs. 26.Setback.The horizontal distance from a lot line inward, beyond which the building and parking may be placed.It delineates the minimum distance a structure must be placed from a lot line and is measured to a building. Within the Overlay District, building, parking, and accessorystructures are not permitted within Setbacks. 27.Story.A habitable level within a building measured from finished floor to finished floor. 28.Total Lot Area.The computed area contained within the Property Lines; it is typically indicated in square feet or acres. 29.Transparency.The amount of clear,unobstructed glass and the structure of the glass on a Facade; windows. 76 of 188 Subsection II: Zoning & Regulating Plans 77 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning & Regulating Plans As stated in paragraph I.A.of this Section, the requirements of this Overlay District supersede those requirements applicable to uses and structures in the B2, R4, and R5 zoning districts. However, the terms and provisions of Section [6-15-15], West Evanston Transitional District,shall supersede therequirements of this Overlay District. Without limiting the generalityof the foregoing, the following requirements of the Overlay District shall relate to the base district zoning requirements in the B2, R4, and R5 zoning districts described below: 1. Uses. The permitted and special uses allowed in the B2, R4, and R5 zoning districts shall be allowed in the Overlay District;however: a.Planned developments are not permitted as a special use in the Overlay District, nor are planned developments required for any of the Building Types described in this Section; and b. Additional uses and use requirements may be defined in this Overlay District. 2.Parking. Parking quantities within the Overlay District must adhere to the requirements set forth in Chapter 16 of theZoning Ordinance. Additional requirements for parking location, landscaping, and screening are set forth in this Overlay District. 3.BuildingTypes. The Building Type standards set forth in this Overlay District supersede the existing lot,yard, bulk, and building-related regulations of the B2, R4, and R5 zoning districts. B. General Zoning Ordinance and City Code ReqUirements The following generally applicable requirements and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and City Code shall apply to uses, lots, and structures within the Overlay District as described below: 1.Site Plan and Appearance Review. a.All applications for development approval for properties located within the Overlay District shall be subject to site plan and appearance review in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in Title 4, Chapter 17 of the City Code. b. In addition, any development over twenty four (24) units or over 20,000 square feet of a single Building Type requires presentation to the Plan Commission with an opportunity for comment by the Commission and the public prior to the final site plan and appearance review conference. Variations. All variations within the Overlay District shall be subject to the procedures and standards for variations set forth in Section 6-3-8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the minor and major variations permitted by Section 6-3-8of the Zoning Ordinance, major variations relating to the following requirements may be considered in the Overlay District: a. Street frontage and build-to zone requirements. b. Fa\;ade requirements, including those relating to transparency, building entrance location, allowable cap and base types (and the requirements for those types), building materials, and balconies. Principle Buildings or UsesonaZoning Lot. More than one principal building or use may be established on a zoning lot within the Overlay District as permitted by the Building Type Standards set forthinSubsections IV through XVII. NonconfonningUsesand Noncomplying Structures.The requirements of Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures, shall apply to uses and structures within the Overlay District. However: a. Single-family homes existing as of the date of adoption of the Overlay District may be repaired, maintained, altered, enlarged or reconstructed pursuant to the requirements of the underlying zoning district, without regard to the requirements of the Overlay District; and b.Any structure that has been designated as a landmark under Title 2, Chapter 9, of the Evanston City Code may be repaired, maintained, altered, or enlarged in a manner that preserves the critical features identified by the Evanston Preservation Commission as the basis for its designation, provided such action is authorized by a certificate of appropriateness issued pursuant to Section 2-9-8 of the Evanston City Code and otherwise complies with all provisions of the Overlay District and the Zoning Ordinance. 78 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning & Regulating Plans 79 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning & Regulating Plans The Regulating Plans, Figures II-C, II-D, II-E, and II-F, provide more specific mapping of the requirements of this Overlay District, including the following: 1. Street Location. Public street right-of-ways required for dedication are defined on the Regulating Plans. a. The centerlines of these streets must be located within ten (10) feet of this location in either direction. b. All street connections shown must be maintained and intersections of cross-street centerlines must be ninety (90) degrees. c. See Subsection III for Street Type Standards. 2. Alley Location. Public alleys required for dedication are defined on the Regulating Plans. a. The centerlines of developed alleys must intersect streets within ten (10) feet of the intersections shown on the plan. b. Alleys must be continuous and connect to the designated streets at both ends; dead end alleys are not permitted. c. See Subsection III for Alley Street Type. 3. Street Type.Permitted Street Types are defined on the Regulating Plans. Additionally, some Building Type regulations relate to the Street Type. See Section III for allowable street types. 4. District Designation. The Regulating Plans define the permitted Building Types and uses for all parcels in the Overlay District. Subsections IV through XVII contain regulations for the permitted Building Types. In many cases, multiple Building Types are permitted on a parcel. 5. Open Space. Parcels, or portions of parcels, designated for use as public Open Space or privately owned Open Space are illustrated on the Regulating Plans. 6. Street Termini. Termini of streets are noted on the Regulating Plans. a. Building faces at these locations are encouraged but not required to include treatments, such as towers on mixed use or apartment buildings, bays, or changes in material. b. In all cases, a street must terminate at a front or side face of a building or on Open Space. 7.Parking Lots. Parking lots are not permitted on a parcel without a building unless: a. The parcel has no public street frontage or b. A special use permit is obtained. While parking lots are allowed as special uses throughout the Overlay District, recommended locations for special use permitted Parking Lots are shown on the Regulating Plans. This Overlay District defines required parcel definition and public right-of-ways. Replatting of many of the existing parcels within the Overlay will be required (see Figure II-B) as part of the development approval process. Plats for developments within the Overlay must include the following: 1.Dedicated Public Street and Alley Right-of-Ways. Right-of-ways defined on the Regulating Plans and in Section II-C. 2. Utility Easements. Additional utility easements may be required by the City of Evanston or other utility providers. Coordinate the locations of these easements for inclusion on the plat. 3. Open Space or Greenway Easement. Open space defined on the Regulating Plans shall be included in plat information and either dedicated or clearly depicted as an easement. 4. Parcel Lines. Parcel lines are defined on the Regulating Plans to designate locations of allowable Building Types only. Fewer divisions or further division of parcels may be included. The following details the districts mapped throughout the Overlay District. 1. West Evanston (WE) 1. This district allows for the development of Townhouse I, Townhouse II,and Small-Lot House. The depth of these parcels allows for the development of the Building Types with rear yards, Townhouse I and Small-Lot House. Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 2. WE 2. This district allows for the development of Townhouse II only. The parcels are not deep enough to develop buildings with rear yards or larger Parking Lots. The reduced front yard Setback of Townhouse III is not acceptable in these locations. Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 3. WE 3. This district allows for the development of Townhouse III.The parcels are shallow, requiring a shallower front yard. To accommodate this, the height of this Building Type is minimized. Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 4. WE 4. This district allows for the development of Townhouse Type II and the Flat Building. Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 10 80 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning &Regulating Plans 5. WE 5. This district allows for the development of the Apartment Building or the Flat Building. Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 6. WE 6. This district allows for the development of the Flex Building.Iconic Buildings are permitted as a special use and may only occur on corner parcels. 7. WE 7.This district allows for the development of the Mixed Use Building and Iconic Buildings. Building Types Districts .-4 N tt'l o:t 11\\0 "wwwwwww ~~~~~~~ Mixed Use Building • Flex Building • Apartment Building • Flat Building •• Townhouse I • Townhouse II ••• Townhouse III • Small Lot House • Iconic Building SU SU SU SU SU SU • Permitted Special Use 11 81 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning &Regulating Plans j l --'>-----------j\ - • ~ WE1 • Townhouse Type I or IIor Small-LotHouse or Iconic Building on corners WE2 Townhouse Type IIor IconicBuilding on corners WE3 Townhouse TypeIIIor Iconic Buildingon corners WE4 Townhouse Type IIor Flat Building or Iconic Building on corners WE7 Mixed-Use Building or Iconic Building WE5 Apartment or Flat Building or Iconic Building on Corners *•Public Neighborhood Street WE6 Flex Building or Iconic Building on Corners Public One Way. Neighborhood Street Recommended Location for Special Use Parking Lot 12 82 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning &Regulating Plans ~l J I •Jf ill1 Iii'\-)! (J CIl Emerson-I III••••••••-..•.-••••I~•••--•-~-I-I-•-1.~.1 •••••-••••••• ••;...•l r Church .l •• 13 83 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay II.Zoning &Regulating Plans ~J •• II i ! i ! ! i I II II ! i j I ! i I ! ! ! ! i i i i !Ii ! ! j ! ----------_._. __._--------------_._-_._--j ake In D7/l ~r..I~--lJ I • Church------------------·---------·--"1 i j i' •••••••--...., ••••-.--...--•••••• II. Lake ,lE 14 84 of 188 Jl West Evanston Zoning Overlay .._....jl.e~~~~_~_::~~laUnr ~[7 Greenwood Key WE1 •WE7 Townhouse Type Ior IIor Mixed-Use Building or Iconic Small-Lot Houseor BuildingIconicBuilding oncorners •Public Open Space WE2 Townhouse TypeIior iconic Building on corners Open Space WE3 Townhouse Type III or *Street Terminus Iconic Building on corners •WE4 •Public Neighborhood TownhouseType II or Street Flat Building or Iconic Building oncorners •Public One WaY.. Neighborhood Street•WE5 Apartment orFlat Building or •Public AlleyIconic Building on Corners WE6 ~ Recommended Location Flex BuildingorIconic for Special Use Parking Buildingoncorners ~Lot 15 85 of 188 86 of 188 Subsection III:Street Type Standards 87 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay III.Street Type Standards 1. All streets, parkways and sidewalks shall be located in dedicated public Right-of-Ways as required by this Section; no private streets are permitted. 2. Allstreets must meet the minimum requirements of all the City of Evanston's street and construction standards. Intersection design should consider pedestrians and bicyclistsaswell as vehicular users negotiating the intersection. 1. Curb Radii. Small curb radii at intersections shorten pedestrian crossing distances and reduce vehicle turning speeds,thereby balancing the ease of travel of the vehicles and pedestrians.Maximum radiiat the intersection of all types of neighborhood street types should be no larger than twenty (20) feet. Preferred radii is ten (10) feet. 2. Alley Intersections. The curb radii at intersections involving alleys shall be a maximum ten (10) feet. 3.Crosswalks.Crosswalks shall be required at all controlled street intersections. a. Dimensions. Crosswalks shall be six to ten (6-10) feet in width, measured from mid-stripe to mid- stripe. b.Markings.Crosswalksshall be appropriately indicated on thefinished street surface with painted markings and/or other approved City treatments. d. Accessibility Requirements.Wheelchair- accessible ramps in compliance with or better than the Illinois Accessibility Code shallbe provided at all locations in which the sidewalk intersects with the curb of a street.The approach to the ramp shall be aligned with the corresponding sidewalk without any jogs or unnecessary deviations. Street Types.Street types defined in this Section outline acceptable street configurations for the streets depicted on the Regulating Plans, SubsectionII. Typical Street Elements.Typical elementsofa vehicular right-of-way are divided into the vehicular and pedestrian realm.Each Street Type detailed in this Section outlines which facilities are applicable to each realm. a. Vehicular Realm.The vehicular realmis comprised of the travel lanes,bicycle lanes and parking lanes. b.PedestrianRealm.The pedestrian realmis typically comprised of the pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalk, path/trail, or off-street bicycle lane, and a parkway that serves to buffer pedestrians or bicyclists from the movements of higher speed vehicles in thevehicular realm. Fire Access. Street configurations have been calculated to provide fire truck access. Where on- street parking is available and the total width of all travel lanes is narrower than eighteen (18) feet, the followingshall apply. a.RoomtoPass. Per the Fire Chief, where needed, at one hundred (100) foot increments, or as otherwise deemed necessary by the Fire Chief, a twenty (20) foot opening in the on-street parking must be provided to allow vehicles to pullover for a fire truck to pass. b.Driveway or Fire Hydrant Zone.A driveway or fire hydrant zone may be utilized to fulfill the requirement as set forth in paragraph (a) above. Vehicular On-Street Parking.On-street parking, as permitted on designated street types, must meet the followingrequirements. a.Parallel Parking. Parallel parking is permitted on designated street types. b. Vehicular Parking Space Dimensions. Dimensions for parking spaces must meet the City of Evanston's requirements for parking dimensions. Existing Street Diagram.Figure III-A defines the street types for the existing streets within and surrounding the Overlay District for reference in the Building Type regulations. Contact the City of Evanston's Department of Public Works for standards for these streets. Modifications. Modifications to the requirements relating to streets, parkways, and sidewalks set forth in thisSubsection III may be approved as part of the site plan and appearance review process if deemed necessary by the City for public safety or fire protection purposes. Refer to the Regulating Plans, Subsection II, for permitted locations of these street types. For all street types except the alley, sidewalks and parkways are required on both sides of the street. 18 88 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlav III.Street Type Standard's 19 89 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay III.Street Type Standards _Q.Q- 10'-0'-25'0' 15·••· 6'-8"1'-0' lA~SETBAQ(I'-<ri~~ ~• T-(f 6'-8'S'-4' 10'-0'·25'0- ~E ~1'-()" lANDSCIPESETBAO< ~~.. Alley Requirements Permitted adjacent to all districts Neighborhood Street Requirements Permitted adjacent to all districts Travel Lanes Lane Width prohibited in the right-of-way minimum 16 feet maximum 19 feet as aooroved bY the City optional Parking Lanes both sides of the street Pavement Width I minimum 28 feet Curbs required prohibited shared prohibited shared Alley.The alley is a very low capacity drive located at the rear of parcels. From the alley, access to parking facilities, loading facilities, and service areas, such as refuse and utilities,is possible without a driveway interrupting the street.Alleys shall be developed pursuant to the standards set forth in Table Ill.1 and as illustrated in Figure lll-i. NeighborhoodStreet. The neighborhood street is a low capacity street that primarily serves those properties directly adjacent to it. This street allows for two way traffic and parking on both sides of the street in a reduced right-of-way. Neighborhood streets shall be developed pursuant to the standards set forth in Table m.2,and as illustrated in Figure m-2. 20 90 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlav III.Street Type Standard's 5'..,.:'10'2',,'-()"10'2' I'.Y ~ TllAVB. "1 lANES ~~21'-0" •PAVEt.£NT 5~'-o' One Way Street Requirements Permitted adjacent to all districts Travel Lanes 1 lane in one direction Lane Width minimum 14' E Allowable Turn Lanes permitted in place of parking at intersectionsiii "'"Parking Lanes optional, one or both sides of street, parallel oniy~ '"'5 Pavement Width minimum 21 feetui: "Curbs required> Permitted Median prohibited---- BicycleFacilities shared 3.OneWayNeighborhood Street. The one way neighborhood street is a low capacity street that primarily serves those properties directly adjacent to it. This street allows for one way traffic and parking on one or both sides of the street in a narrow right- of-way. One way neighborhood streets shall be developed pursuant to the standards set forth in Table III.3, and as illustrated in Figure III-3, 21 91 of 188 92 of 188 Subsections IVthrough XVII: Building Type Standards 93 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay 24 94 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlav IV.General Building Type Standard's The following outlines the Building Types permitted in this Overlay District.Refer to Table II.A and the Regulating Plans, (Figures II-C, II-D, II-E, and II-F) for permitted locations. 1. Mixed Use Building. This Building Type allows for the development of commercial uses, such as office, retail, and service uses on the Ground Story, as well as office, service, anclJor residential uses on the upper floors, to the extent all such uses are allowed in the underlying B-2 base zoning. The Mixed Use Building is located close to the street with doors and storefront windows along the sidewalk and parking in the rear. These buildings are not located along neighborhood streets (see Figure III-A). 2. Flex Building. This Building Type allows for the development of residential uses on all floors, with Ground Story commercial as allowed in the underlying B-2 base zoning. The Flex Building may be located along connector or neighborhood streets (see Figure III-A). 3. Apartment Building. This Building Type allows for the development of multiple residential units, either rental or condominium units, in a single building. The Apartment Building has a small landscaped area between the building and the street with doors and windows facing the street and parking in the rear. These buildings are not typically located along neighborhood streets unless additional standards are utilized (see Figure III-A). 4. Flat Building. This Building Type allows for three to nine residential units to be developed within a smaller building than the Apartment Building. The Flat Building has a landscaped area between the building and the street with doors and windows facing the street and parking in the rear. These buildings are located on neighborhood or connector streets (see Figure III-A). 5.Townhouse Type I. The Townhouse Type I contains multiple attached single family residences, grouped in small buildings with landscaped front yards. The Townhouse Type I includes a small rear yard and separate garage, accessed from the rear off an alley or Car Court. These buildings are located on neighborhood or connector streets (see Figure III-A). 6. Townhouse Type II. The Townhouse Type II contains multiple attached single family residences, grouped in small buildings with landscaped front yards. The garage for the Townhouse Type II is located within the rear of the building, accessed directly off the alley or Car Court, with no rear yard. These buildings are located on neighborhood or connector streets (see Figure III-A). 7.Townhouse Type m.The Townhouse Type III contains multiple attached single family residences, grouped in small buildings with small landscaped front yards. The garage for the Townhouse Type III is located within the rear of the building, accessed directly off the alley or Car Court, with no rear yard. These buildings are located on neighborhood streets or other existing streets (see Figure III-A). 8. Small-Lot House. The Small-Lot House is a single family, detached structure similar in scale to the townhouses with a landscaped front yard. The Small-Lot House includes a small rear yard and separate garage, accessed from the rear off an alley or Car Court. These buildings are located on neighborhood streets (see Figure III-A). 9. Iconic Building. The Iconic Building is meant to allow for the unique building styles typically associated with neighborhood-scale churches, synagogues, religious assembly, community or cultural uses, libraries, and civic or governmental uses. The Iconic Building may only occur on corner parcels with two intersecting street frontages. These buildings may be located along any streets, but may require a special use permit pursuant to Subsection II.E of this Overlay or the underlying base zoning district. 25 95 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay IV.General Building Type Standards Street Frontage Side &Rear Yard BuildableArea Parking &LoadingSetbacks Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Front Yard Corner Coverage of Side Rear Maximum Impervious +Minimum Minimum Maximum Location of Parking Number of Principal Principal BTZ (feet)Side Yard Front Property Setback Setback Building Semj-Lot Width Lot Size FAR Facilities (yard)Permitted Building Building BTZ (feet)Line (feet)(feet)Coverage Pervious (feet)Curb Cuts Height Height Coverage (stories)(stories) Mixed Use, Commercial &Civic Buildings 5-10 BTZ; 5-10 BTZ; 4 stories or 15-20 BTZ 15-20 BTZ 57';within MixedUse on new on new 95%5 5 none 90%+5%none none none Rear if no alley,2 100'of Building streets,streets,1 per lot Darrow! Dodge 8<Dodge 8<Church,3 Darrow Darrow stories or47' 5-10 BTZ; 5-10 BTZ; 10-15 BTZ10-15 BTZ Rear; cannot extend none,Flex on new on new 85%10 5 60%70%+15%65 none none into BTZs beyond access off 2 3 stories or Building streets, streets,principal building alley 44' Dodge &Dodge 8< I');:lrrt'lw Darrt'lw Residential Buildings Apartment Rear;cannotextend none, Building 10-20 BTZ 10-20 BTZ 80%10 5 60%70%+15%65 none none into BTZsbeyond access off 2 4.5 stories or withRS principal building alley 54' Base Zoning Apartment Rear;cannot extend none,Building 15-25 BTZ15-25 BTZ 80%10 5 60% 70%+15%65 none none into BTZs beyond access off 2 4.5 stories or withR4 principalbuilding alley 54' Base Zoning Maximum 7.5;Rear;must beBuilding Width 15 none,3 stories orFlatBuilding15-30 BTZ 15-30 BTZ along street between 545%60%+15%60 none none screened from all access off 2 42' face:75'buildings streetsby buildings alley Townhouse 5;10 Rear; must be none,3 stories (with Type I 15-25 BTZ 15-25 BTZ none between 5 45%50%+15%none none none screened from all access off 1.5 Parapet Cap buildings streets by buildings alley Type) or 35' Townhouse 5;10 Rear;mustbe if no alley,3.5 stories or TypeII 15-30 BTZ 15-30 BTZ none between 550%55%+15%none none none screened from all 1 per stree 2 42'buildings streets by buildings frontage Townhouse 5;10 Rear;must be if no alley,3 stories or Type III 10-25 BTZ 10-25 BTZ none between 5 50%55%+15%none nonenone screened from all 1 per stree 2 42'bUildings streetsby buildings frontage Rear;located behind back facade of 3stories (withSmallLotprincipalbuilding;none, House 15-25 BTZ 15-25 BTZ none 5545%50%+15%none none none must be screened access off 1.5 Parapet Cap from allstreets by alley Type) or 35' buildings Iconic Rear and side yards;ifnoalley,2 stories or Building 5-25 BTZ 5-25 BTZ none 55none 60%+20%50 none none cannot extend into 1 per street 1 30'BTZs frontage Table IV.A: Building Types Summary Table.This table summarizesthe BuildingTyperequirements set forth in Subsections V through XVI.The specific requirements in Sections Vthrough XVI shall control over anysummary information in this table. 26 96 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay IV.General Building Type Standards Building Height Transparency Entrance Cap &Base Type Use Requirements Required Upper MinimumMaximum Ground- Floor: Maximum Building Setback for Tower floor:Floor to Upper Story Fa(;ade Area Principal Allowable Cap Allowable Base Allowed Uses (permitted/special uses are definedAdditionalFront&Corner EntranceHeight at Height in Permitted Floor to Floo Floor Side Fa(;ade without Location Types Types by the base zoning with these exceptions) Street Fa(;ade Height (feet)Height TransparencyRear(feet)Transparency 15-24;over Front or Parapet, Pitch, Ground floor must be occupied by retail or Yes 20 counts as 9-14 12%Applies Comer Side Storefront service space. Upper floors include residential, two stories Fac;ade & Tower service, or office uses. Frontor Parapet, Pitch, Storefront &Commercial uses are allowed as defined by 2 stories 8 Yes 9-16 9-14 12% Applies Corner Side underlying zoning. Residential uses are allowed Fac;;ade &Tower Stoop on all floors. Front or Parapet, Pitch,Yes 9-14 9-14 12% Applies Corner Side Stoop &Porch Ground floor must be occupied. Fac;;ade &Tower 3.5 stories or Frontor Parapet, Pitch,8 Yes 9-14 9-14 12% Applies Corner Side Stoop &Porch Ground floor must be occupied.42'Fac;;ade &Tower Yes on Front, units at 9-14 9-14 12%Applies Corner Side, Parapet, Pitch,Stoop &Porch Parks, playgrounds, and educational institutions street &Side & Tower are not permitted. termini Fac;;ade Yes on Front or Primary permitted use is single-familyattached2.5 stories or units at Parapet, Pitch, 35'8 street 8-14 8-14 12% Applies Corner Side &Tower Stoop &Porch or two-family only. One accessory dwellingunit termini Far;ade is permitted in the accessory building. Yes on Front or2.5 stories or 8 units at 8-14 8-14 12% Applies Corner Side Parapet, Pitch,Stoop &Porch Primary permitted use is single-family attached 35'street Far;ade &Tower or two-family only. termini . Yes on Frontor2.5 stories or 8 unitsat 8-14 8-14 12% Applies Corner Side Parapet, Pitch,Stoop &Porch Primarypermitted use issingle-family attached 35'street Fac;ade &Tower or two-family only. termini Yes on 2.5 stories or end units Front or Parapet, Pitch, Primary permitted use is single-family.One 35'8 or units at 8-14 8-14 12% Applies Corner Side &Tower Stoop & Porch accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the street Fac;;ade accessory building. termini 1 story:Front or May only be occupied bychurches, synagogues, Yes 15-30;9-14 10%Corner Side Parapet, Pitch,Stoop religious assembly, community or cultural uses,2 stories:Fac;;ade Spire,&Tower libraries, and government or civic uses.9-15 27 97 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay v.Building Types: Base Types <D Horizontal 1 ~~;~SSion ~Transparency. ~<DGround Story Elevation. sidewalk ~ Vertical Divisions. v:The following details the Base Type requirements.Refer to each Building Type for its permitted Base Types. A. Storefront Base Type.(See Figure V-A) ••Transparency. A minimum of 75% of the Front Facade between two (2) and eight (8) feet above the sidewalk must be comprised of transparent, non-reflective windows into the Ground Story space. ~Ground StoryElevation. Ground Story elevation must be between zero (0) and one (1) feet above sidewalk. ••Vertical Division. Base Facade shall be vertically divided with an Expression Line into segmentsno greater than thirty (30) feet in width. ••Horizontal Expression Line. A horizontal Expression Line shall define the base from the upper floorsofthe building.elf)Entryway. All entries shall be recessed a minimum of three (3) feet and a maximum of eight (8) feet deep,and be a width no greater than eight (8) feet. 4ZE>Horizontal Expression Line. Transparency is determined per BuildingType. ~Ground Story Elevation. B. Porch Base Type.(See Figure V-B)<»Ground Story Elevation.Ground Story elevation must be located a maximum of 2'-6" above the sidewalk and,with avisible occupied basement, a maximum of 4'-6" above the sidewalk.4aD Vertical Division. Base Facade for all Building Types shall be vertically divided with an Expression Line into segments no greater than sixty (60) feet in width . ~Horizontal Expression Line.A horizontal Expression Line shall define the Ground Story from the upper floors and,where permitted,the visible basement from the Ground Story of the building for all Building Types. ~Entryway. All entries shall be located off a porch (a raised, roofed platform), which shall be a minimum of five (5) feet deep and eight (8) feet wide. a.Enclosed porches shall not be allowed. 28 98 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay v.Building Types: Base Types sidewalkkce VerticalDivisions. Figure V-C. Stoop Base Type. c.Stoop Base Type.(See Figure V-C) ~Ground Story Elevation.Ground Story elevation must be located a maximum of 2'-6" above the sidewalk or with a visible occupied basement a maximum of 4'-6"above the sidewalk. ~Vertical Division.Base Facade for all Building Types shall be vertically divided with an Expression Line into segments no greater than sixty (60) feet in width. ~Horizontal Expression Line.A horizontal Expression Line shall define the Ground Story from the upper floors and,where permitted,the visible basement from the Ground Story of the building for all Building Types. ~Entryway. All entries shall be located off a stoop. Stoops (open platforms, typically raised) shall be a minimum of three (3) feet deep and four (4) feet wide. Horiwntal Expression Line. Transparency is determined per Building Type. Horiwntal Expression Line. Ground Story Elevation. Optional Visible Basement. 29 99 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay VI.Building Types: Cap Types ~c==:1========j-••Cap Height. ~u~p~pe~r~f~loo=r~o~f~bU~i~ld~in=g===="..~ L--••Horiwntal Expression Line. A. Parapet Cap Type.(See Figure VI-A) •Height.Minimum cap height from the top of the upper floor to the top of the parapet is two (2) feet, maximum is six (6) feet.The cap shall be high enough to screen the roof and any roof appurtenances from view of any adjacent buildingof similar height. ~Horizontal Expression Line.Horizontal Expression Lines shall separate the cap from the upper floors of the building and shall define the top of the cap. <i1E)Use.Occupied space may not be incorporated behind this Cap Type. B. Pitched Roof Cap Type.(See Figure VI-B) "Roof Types. The following are permitted roof types: a.Hipped, shed, gabled,butterfly,and any combination with or without dormers are acceptable. b.Gambrel roofs are acceptable. If the ridge runs parallel to the street, one dormer per fifteen (15) feet of street face shall be included. ~Pitch. Pitched roof Cap Type may not be sloped less than a 6:12 (rise:run) or more than 12:12,except in the following cases: a.Roofs located aboveasecond Story,except on Iconic Buildings,are permitted to haveapitch as low as 4:12. b.Butterfly roofs may not be sloped more than 4:12. c.Pitched roofs on a tower are permitted to have a pitch steeper than 12:12. ~Height.Roof height may not be greater than the total of all floors below the roof.e Use. Occupied space may be incorporated into this Cap Type. a. This space constitutesaHalf-Story. b. Occupied space may not be incorporated into this Cap Type when a gambrel or butterflyroof is used. 30 100 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay VI.Building Types: Cap Types CS>Tower Width. ~ Allowable Cap Type.cs>~~1 I..~ n~========~==:::j~ ••Horizontal Expression Line. C.Tower.(See Figure VI-C) ~Location.Towers are permitted in the following locations: a. No more than one (1) tower per building. b.0 more than one (1) tower is permitted for every 300' of street face of a development. c. Permissible tower locations are further specified in the Building Type regulations set forth in Subsections IX through XVII. CSHeight. Maximum tower height from the top of the parapet or eave to the top of the tower is the equivalent of the height of one (1) upper floor of the building to which the tower is applied.C>Width. Maximum tower width from the front, corner side, interior side, and rear Facade is one-third (113) .the width of the Front Facade or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less. cDHorizontal ExpressionLine.Horizontal Expression Lines shall separate the tower from the upper floors of the building, except on residential Building Types. CSUse.Towers may be occupied by the same uses allowed in upper floors of the Building Type to which it is applied. cDTower Cap.Allowable Cap Types are parapet and pitched roof on the top of the tower element. D. Spire.(See Figure VI-D) ~Location. Spires are permitted only on Iconic Buildings and must be located on top of a tower. ~Height.Maximum spire height from the top of the tower to the top of the spire is thirty (30) feet, including any decorative elements atop the apex of the spire. ~Width.Maximum spire width is one-half (112)the width of the tower on which it is situated. ,-Use.Spires may not be occupied; they are a decorative element. E.Special Approval Iconic buildings may request special approval for unique Cap Types not included in this code. Approval for unique Cap Types will be included in the special use permitting process. 31 101 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay VII.Building Types: Measuring Transparency .UpperStory fi ~Transparency. :'~Transparency - ReqUIrement . • Ground Story~-' •••••••••••••••• Transparency! Measured r--l r--l Between 2'L-J L-J &8'.!hCJCJI VII.The parameters outlined in this Section detail how to measure building Transparency. Capitalized Terms are defined in Subsection I. A. Storefronts.(See Figure VII-A) ~TransparencyMeasured by Floor. On buildings with a storefront Base Type, Transparency is measured with a separate percentage for the Ground Story Transparency and the upper Story Transparency.'8 Ground Story. The Ground Story Transparency is measured on the Facade between two (2) feet and eight (8) feet above sidewalk level on storefronts. Refer to the Base Type standards for the minimum percentage. •Upper Story. The upper Story Transparency level of these buildings is measured by Story, from floor to.fl?or.Refer to the Building Type standards for the mlillmum percentage. ~Transparency Measured Over the Entire Facade. Figure VII-B. Measuring Transparency on Porch & Stoop Residential Buildings. B. Porch or Stoop Residential BUildings.(See Figure VII-B) ~TransparencyMeasured by Facade. On residential buildings with a porch or stoop Base Type, Transparency is measured as a percentage of the entire Facade and not by Story. ~Ground and Upper Stories.Transparency is measured along the full Facade,including the Facade of a Story located within the roof structure.Refer to the Building Type standards for the minimum percentage. c.General Transparency Requirement.(See Figures VII-A and VII-B)em.Maximum Area of No Transparency. On front and corner side Facades of applicable Building Types, as specified in Subsections IX through XVII, no rectangular area greater than 30%of the each Story's Facade may be blank without Transparency.This area is measured from floor to floor of each Story. 32 102 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay VIII.Building Types:Measuring Height & Coverage l:reap D DDDDD;I;~~ Average Grade.---) Interior Side Property Line·I·~-:::::----- --- ---·,·· !r~'~=~~~;::;i:~~,~~;~§ ::i I !.....---------------.-----------------------------------I~ fl i I~g.:e I.•• •~a:; ~I..Ie~ m I ,.--••-:••••:I ~a:L-.:..J Corner Side Property Line VIII.The parameters outlined in this Section detail how to measure the height and building coverage of a structure. Capitalized Terms are defined in Subsection I. A. Measuring Height.(See Figure VIII-A) 1.Height in Stories. Each Building Type includes a provision listing the number of permitted stories, typically in a minimum and maximum number of stories. 2. Half-Stories. Half-Stories are located either completely within the roof structure or in a basement exposed a maximum of one-half Story above grade. 3. FloorHeight. Each Building Type includes a permitted range of height for each Story. a. Floor height is measured in feet, between the floor of a Story to the floor of the next Story above it. b. For single Story buildings and the uppermost Story of a multiple Story building, floor to floor height shall be measured from the floor of the Story to the tallest point of the ceiling. Midpoint of Highest Slope. Ground Story. Average f-Grade. OJ Maximum Impervious Site Coverage = Building Coverage +Impervious Surfaces. Maximum Building Coverage = Principal Buildings +Accessory Structures. 4.Overall Building Height. Maximum overall height is provided for all Building Types and is measured in feet as follows: a. Parapet Cap Type. Overall building height is measured from the average grade of the bottom of the building's front Facade to the to the top of the parapet. b.Pitched Cap Type. Overall building height is measured from the average grade of the bottom of the building's front Facade to the midpoint of the highest roof slope. 1.Building Coverage.The percentage of a lot covered by all structures, principal and accessory. 2.ImperviousSite Coverage.The percentage of a lot covered by all buildings (principal and accessory), pavement, and other Impervious Surfaces. 3.Semi-Pervious Lot Coverage.Within each Building Type, an additional percentage of the lot may be surfaced in a Semi-Pervious material. Examples of Semi-Pervious materials include but are not limited to permeable pavers, and permeable asphalt. 33 103 of 188 West Evansto~ Zoning 9verlay IX. Building Types:Mixed Use BUilding S Front and Corner Side Build-to Zones. '8 Maximum Impervious Coverage. •Occupy the Corner, RearYard Setback. Additional Semi- Pervious Surface. Interior I Side Yard I Setback. ~~LOading I Facilities. ,I ~ :I .Parking I .I Q)Locauon ,Q)c:, !:Q:J (showmg Ill) ~optionalI1 1 '2Q)single double i a;g.loaded aisle):1: '-_11. I ////~~Front and/777///7"/7"/77//////7/7//7 /?//"/////////////~/j'i,~~Corner Side-- --- --- --- ---.....I B 'ld-- - -- - -- -Front Property Line lil -to Zones. ~A1lowable •••••••Driveway. A. Building Siting.(See Figure IX-A) Street Frontage.. C3D A minimum of 95%of the length of the front.Bmld- to Zone minus the allowable double loaded aIsle of parking 'as permitted (see S),must be occupied by building...S The intersection of the front and corner sIde Bmld-to Zones (the corner) must be occupied byabuilding. S Front and corner side building Facades must be constructed within Build-to Zones located between five (5) and ten (10) feet from the property line with the following exception: a. Build-to Zones on all new streets, Dodge Avenue, and Darrow Avenue must be between fifteen (15) and twenty (20) feet from the property line.e Eaves, upper floor bays, and awnings are permitted to extend to the property line, maintaining a minimum of ten (10) feet of height clearance at Ground Story. Side &Rear YardSetbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures & uses... •Interior Side yard Setback shall be a mmimum of five (5) feet. ~Rear yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Buildable Area. S Maximum Impervious Site Coverage (including Building Coverage) shall be 90%of Total Lot Area .. ~An additional 5%of the Total Lot Area may be Seml- Pervious. CI5>No minimum lot size is required. S No maximum floor area ratio applies. Off-Street Parking & Loading. S Parking is permitted in the rear yard only with the following exception: 34 Figure IX-A: Building Siting. a. Parcels located on Emerson Street, Simpson Street, or Green Bay Road with property line~ longer than 200'may include double loaded aIsle of parking at the property line, perpendicular to the street. ~Allloading facilities shall be located on the rear Facade. Driveways & Access... ~If no alley exist~, one (1)~riveway per lot ISpermmed with the followmg exceptions: a.Driveways are not permitted off any new street, Green Bay Road, Church Street, Dodge Avenue, and Darrow Avenue. b. Driveway location shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the intersection of the front and corner side property lines of the block. c. Shared driveways are encouraged.C>Drive-through facilities are not permitted with the following exception: a.A drive-through facility located on the rear of the building,with stacking fully in the rear, is permitted as a special use. B. Height &Use Requirements.(See Figure IX-B) Building & Floor Heights.. ••Building height shall be a mini~um ~f two (2).stones and a maximum of four (4) stones, WIth a maXImum overall height of fifty-seven (57) feet with the following exception:.., a. Buildings along Church Street located Within 100 from the corner of DarrowAvenue shall be a 104 of 188 West Evanston Zonina Overlay IX. Building Types:MixeaUse Building ~ Ground Story Office Uses. •• Transparency ofthe Upper Floors. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD IT] CD CD IT] <S>Principal Entrance Location. ~ Entrance Spacing. maximum of three (3) stories,with the third Story set back a minimum of eight (8) feet and overall maximum height of forty-seven (47) feet. ~Allowable Ground Story height is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty-four (24) feet. When the Ground Story is twenty (20) feet or more in height,it shall count as two (2) stories in terms of measuring the overall building height. ~ Allowable upper floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet,maximum offourteen (14) feet. ~Accessory structures &uses shall not exceed the height of the Principal Building on the lot. Uses.Permitted uses and special uses are defined by the base district zoning with the following exceptions: GParking is permitted internally in the rear of the building or fully below grade;a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the street Facades must be occupied by a permitted use other than parking. ~Office uses on the Ground Story require a specialuse permit. ~Home occupations are permitted per Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. C. Facade Requirements.(See Figure IX-C) Transparency. CiID A minimum of 12%of the upper Story of all street Facades, measured floor to floor,shall have ~Building Height. Area of No Transparency. L::,. >1 Figure IX-C: Facade Requirements. transparent,non-reflective windows. <S On front and corner side Facades,no rectangular area greater than 30%of the Facade per floor may be blank,without Transparency. BuildingEntrance.e The building's principal entrance must be on the front or corner side Facade. Entrances at the corner of a building satisfy this requirement. •Provide a minimum of one (1) entrance for every seventy-five (75) feet of building frontage on the Front Facade. Allowable Cap &Base Types.(See Sections V and VI) •Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof.A tower is permitted. ~Allowable Base Type is the storefront. BuildingMaterials.Applicable only to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. S Facades must be constructed of a durable, natural material.False materials intended to look like other materialsshall be avoided, and if used limited to the extent possible. $Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. <S Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 35 105 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay X. Building Types:Flex Building alley --------~'~RearYard Setback. Rear Property Line ;J -~-------------------~.~!r·········-·--·-------· .-.-."-····1i -A11o=bl'D,;",=y I ~~"Interior Side Yard Setback. :~)I I ~I~: ~~-~~---~----~ §I~:~ ~In!mm~~If ~: E ~ 8 •~-..I Front Pro Line ~Additional Semi-Pervious Surface. ~Maximum Impervious Coverage. tZ>Maximum Building Coverage. ~Occupytbe Corner.~Front and Corner Side ••••••.Build-to Zones. k ~street ~~Front Property Line Coverage, ~Minimum Lot Widtb. Street Frontage. •A minimum of 85%of the length of the front Build- to Zone must be occupied by building. S The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. G>Front and corner side building Facades must be constructed within Build-to Zones located between five (5) and ten (10) feet from the property line with the following exception: a. Build-to Zones on all new streets, Dodge Avenue, and Darrow Avenue to be between ten (10) and fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Side & Rear Yard Setbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. •Interior Side yard Setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. ~Rear yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Buildable Area. S Maximum Building Coverage is 60%of Total Lot Area. S Maximum Impervious Site Coverage (including Building Coverage) shall be 70% of Total Lot Area. •An additional 15% of the Total Lot Area may be Semi -Pervious. 4S>Minimum lot width is sixty five (65) feet.No minimum lot size is required. e No maximum floor area ratio applies. Off-Street Parking &Loading. S Parking is permitted in the rear yard of a lot, but may not extend beyond the face of the Principal Building into the corner side Build-to Zones. •.All loading facilities shall be located on the rear Facade. Driveways & Access. S'Driveway access is permitted only off public alleys. S'Drive-through facilities are not permitted. Building &Floor Heights. G:ID Building height shall be a minimum of two (2) stories and a maximum of (3) stories, with the third Story set back a minimum of eight (8) feet. ~Maximum overall building height is forty-four (44) feet. ~Allowable Ground Story height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximum of sixteen (16) feet. ~Allowable upper floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximum of fourteen (14) feet . 36 106 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay X. Building Types: Flex Building ••Maximum Building Height.----- ~Upper Story Facade ~ Setback. CZ>Allowable Floor to Floor Height. ~Allowable Floor to Floor Height.InternalRear Parking. ----)CD I ~~=========_-_-_-_--="'"===+===4-------1 £--c;s.Allowable CapType.caD~~~~~;areney.---------03 r-ffil::JIi J m m ·~~~s~~~~ey.:~AIJ_;~:J_CD__CD_I,1$Allow,bl,n,,,Typo •P"o",.1 Emroo~"""'"00.•"ee'3-----th...;;j=========;;l,I_l _ Uses.Permitted uses and special uses are defined by the base district zoning with following exceptions: CS>Parking is permitted internally in the rear of the first floor of the building or fully below grade; a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the street Facades of the Ground Story must be occupied by a permitted use other than parking.CZi>Permitted residential uses may exceed 20,000 square feet in area and may be utilized on all floors. ...,Home occupations are permitted per Chapter 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Transparency.caDA minimum of 12% of all street Facades, measured floor to floor, shall have transparent,non-reflective windows. Increased Transparency is required on the Ground Story for the Storefront Base Type (see Section V). •On front and corner side Facades,no rectangular area greater than 30% of the Facade per floor may be blank,without Transparency. Building Entrance . •The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side building Facade. Entrances at the corner of a building satisfy this requirement. Allowable Cap &Base Types.(See Sections V and VI) c;s.Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof. A tower is permitted. <S)Allowable Base Type is the storefront or stoop. Building Materials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street.cD Facades must be constructed of a durable, natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided, and if used limited to the extent possible. •Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height,and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS)are not permitted. Balconies. ~Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 37 107 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Qverlay XI.Building Types:Apartment BUilding !ij:::~:=:~~':e-~_dL__~::::::y.·l I 1 '..I~I I 1 !!i~I'~~: ~:G1l~l:i:G ~Q: ••~:!If o •O~~ Front Pro arty Line Additional Semi-Pe Surface. Maximum Impervious Coverage. Maximum Building Coverage. •Occupy me Corner. <D RearYard Setback. C>Allowable Driveway. ~R4 Base:Front and Corner Side Build-to Zones . ~R5 Base: Front and Corner Side Build-to Zones. k .-....street I~Front Property Line Coverage.) •.Minimum Lot Width. Street Frontage._A minimum of 80% of the length of the front Build- to Zone must be occupied by building. <eThe intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. ~In locations with R4 base zoning, front and corner side building Facades must be constructed within Build-to Zones located between fifteen (15) and twenty five (25) feet from the property line. ~In locations withR5 base zoning, front and corner side building Facades must be constructed within Build-to Zones located between ten (10) and twenty (20) feet from the property line. Side &Rear Yard Setbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. ~Interior Side yard Setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet . •Rear yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Buildable Area. (SMaximum Building Coverage is 60%of Total Lot Area. ~Maximum ImperviousSite Coverage (including Building Coverage)shallbe 70% of Total Lot Area. ~An additional 15% of the Total Lot Area may be Semi-Pervious. ~Minimum lot width is sixty five (65) feet. No minimumlot size is required. ••No maximum floor area ratio applies. Off-Street Parking &Loading. ~Parking is permitted in the rear yard of a lot, but may not extend beyond the face of the Principal Building into the corner side Build-to Zones. ~Allloading facilities shall be located on the rear Facade. Driveways & Access. C>Driveway access is permitted only off public alleys. B. Height &Use Requirements.(See Figure XI-B) Building &Floor Heights. ~In locations withR4 base zoning: a. Building height shall be a minimum of two (2) stories and a maximum of three and a half (3 1/2) stories. b.Four and a half (4 1/2) stories are permitted if the top Story is set back from all street faces a minimum of eight (8) feet. c. Maximum building heightonastreet face is forty-two (42) feet, overall fifty-four(54)feet. ~In locations with R5 base zoning: a.Building height shall be a minimum of two (2) 38 108 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XI. Building Types: Apartment Building CD CD rn I rnrnITF<;P:J-L-••~:,~,;::'Y [[ (IJCD CD CD :ffi I ~;HE •.Allow,bl,B,dyp' ::Maximum Building Height. ~In R4,Upper Story ~ Facade Setback ~Allowable Floor to Floor Height. ~Internal Rear Parking. c-.Facade Transparency. Story and a maximum of four and a half (4 1/2) stories. b. Maximum building height is fifty-four (54) feet. ~Allowable floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximumoffourteen (14) feet. Uses.Permitted uses and special uses are defined by the base district zoning with following exceptions:CZ>Parking is permitted internally in the rear of the of the first full floor of the building; a minimum of thirty (30) feet from the street Facade of the Ground Story must be occupied by a permitted use other than parking. ~Parking is permitted in floors located fully or partially below grade. No more than four (4) feet of that floor may be exposed above grade. Transparency.c-.A minimum of 12% of all street Facades, measured floor to floor, shall have transparent, non-reflective windows.<S On front and corner side Facades, no rectangular area greater than 30%of the Facade per floor may be blank,without Transparency. BuildingEntrance. ••The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side building Facade. Entrances at the corner of a building satisfy this requirement. Allowable Cap &Base Types.(See Sections V and VI for descriptions)c;s.Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof.A tower is permitted. <iI)Allowable Base Types are the stoop and porch. Building Materials.Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street.<aD>Facades must be con~tru~ted of a durable,,:atural material.False materIals rntended to look like other materials shall be avoided,and if used limited to the extent possible.<S Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. cD Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 39 109 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XII.Building Types: Flat Building 4:'»Front &Corner I Side Build-to ( Zone.----'l)~ ~. II) J I IH i.~!H 8 1 j'"--~pr~p-:rt;L.i~e-_. _ •• - •• .Max. Buil ing Width •Mm.Lot Width ) Figure XII-A: Building Siting. '8 Maximum Building Coverage. G>Minimum Space Between Buildings. ~Occupythe Corner. A. Building Siting.(See Figure XII-A) Multiple principal and accessory structures &uses are permitted on single parcels; however,each building must meet all requirements. Street Frontage. • Front and corner side Facades of buildings must be constructed within a Build-to Zone, located between fifteen (15) and thirty (30) feet from the front and corner side property lines. ~ The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. '11)For each Principal Building, the total length of all facades facing each street (maximum building width) may not exceed 75 feet. Interior Side &Rear Yard Setbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. ~ Interior Side yard Setback shall be a minimum of seven and a half(7.5) feet. •Rear yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. •For multiple buildings on one parcel, a minimum of fifteen (15) feet is required between buildings. Buildable Area. <8Maximum Building Coverage shall be 45%of the Total Lot Area. t8 Rear Yard Setback. -----~.,Allowable Driveway. Maximum Impervious Coverage. Front &Corner Build-to Zone. ~Maximum Impervious Site Coverage (including Building Coverage) shall be 60%of the Total Lot Area. ~An additional 15%of the Total Lot Area may be Semi-Pervious. ~Minimum lot width is sixty (60) feet at the front property line. No minimum lot size is required. Parking, Accessory Structures,&Accessory Uses. ••Surface parking and garages are permitted in the rear, behind the back Facade of the Principal Building. 4DAlI surface parking must be screened from all streets by buildings. Driveways & Access. "Driveway access is permitted only off public alleys. 40 110 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XII.Building Types: Flat Building • Facade Transparency. ce Area of 0 Transparency. <5E>Principal Entrance Location. Building &Floor Heights.4ID Building heights shall be a minimum of two (2) stories and a maximum of three (3) stories. Maximum overall building height is forty two (42) feet. ~Allowable floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximum of fourteen (14)feet. Uses. (1E)For all floors, permitted uses and special uses are defined by the base district zoning except that parks, playgrounds, and educational institutions are not permitted. Transparency. •A minimum of 12%of the front and the corner side Facades shall have transparent, non-reflective windows.ce On front and corner side Facades, no rectangular area greater than 30% of the Facade per floor may be blank, without Transparency. rn 0 rn 0 rn CiiII>Exterior Stairs to Upper Stories Building Entrance. <5E>The principal entrance for all buildings must be located on the front, corner side, or side Facade. Ciill>Exterior entrances to upper stories are not permitted on the Front Facade. Exterior stairs to an upper Story are permitted only on the rear Facade. Allowable Cap &Base Types. (See Sections V and VI)CS>Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof. Towers are permitted only on Corner Buildings at street termini as designated on the Regulating Plans.cD Allowable Base Types are stoop and porch. BuildingMaterials.Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. CSFacades must be constructed of a durable, natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided,and if used limited to the extent possible.cD Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. ~Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 41 111 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XIII.Building Types: Townhouse I ~ Encroachment into Corner Side Build-to Zone . ••Front &Corner Side Build-to Zones. ••Occupy the Corner. Parking &Accessory Structure Location. Additional Semi-Pervious Surface. Maximum Building Coverage . •Maximum Number of Continuous Townhouses. A. Building Siting.(See Figure XIII-A) Multiple principal and accessory structures &uses are permitted on single parcels; however, each building must meet.all requirements.Note: Each building consists of muluple townhouse units. Street Frontage. ••Front and corner side Facades of all building units must be constructed within a Build-to Zone, located between fifteen (15) and twentyfive (25) feet from the front and corner side property line. ••The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to ~o~es (~e corner) must be occupied by a building.'1&>Bmldmg uruts may step back beyond adjacent units within the Build-to Zone in increments no greater than ten (10) feet.' Side &Rear Yard Setbacks.Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. ~Per street face, a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) continuous units are permitted to cluster in a building without side yard Setbacks.<Ii>The interior side of any building must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the interior side property line.<S>For multiple buildings on one parcel, a minimum of ten (10) feet is required between buildings. •The rear of any building must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line. Buildable Area. ~Maximum Building Coverage shall be 45%of the Total Lot Area. CS)Maximum Impervious Site Coverage shall be 50% of the Total Lot Area. ~An additional 15% of the Total Lot Area may be Semi-Pervious. "No minimum lot size is required. Parking, Accessory Structures, & Accessory Uses. ••Surface parking and accessory structures &uses are permitted in the rear yard, a minimum of ten (10) feet behind the back Facade of the Principal Building. _Accessory structures &uses are permitted within the cor~er sid~ yard Build-to Zone, but may not extend mto this yard beyond the face of the Principal Building.C>Surface parking areas must be screened from all street faces by buildings. Driveways & Access. ~Driveway and garage access is permitted only off public alleys. 42 112 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XIII.Building Types: Townhouse I ~ Overall Building Height . •••Street Face Building ~4Z>Accessory StrUcture Height.Allowable Floor Height.~ Permitted Use.cD Allowed Accessory Dwelling Unit. Area of No Transparency. CiS>Principal Entrance Location. ------ <SOn front andcorner side Facades, no rectangular area greater than 30%of the Facade per floor may be blank, without Transparency. BuildingEntrance. CiS>The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side Facade. Allowable Cap & Base Types. (See Sections V and VI) ~Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and p.itched . roof. Towers are permitted only on end uruts or umts at street termini, per the Regulating Plans. <ili)Allowable Base Types are stoop and porch. Facade Design. Gi)Each building, consisting of multiple connected units, must be treated with a different design than adjacent buildings, such as a change in material color, Cap Type, or Base Type. BuildingMaterials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. CSFacades must be constructed of a durable, ~atural material.False materials intended to look lIke other materials shall be avoided, and if used limited to the extent possible. <DConcrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3")in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. CSProjecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. Building &Floor Heights. "'Principal Building height at the front street .faceshall be a minimum of one and a half (1 1/2) stones and a maximum of two and a half (2 1/2) stories. ~On parapet buildings, a maximum of 3 stories is permitted if the third floor is set back from the FrontFacade a minimum of eight (8) feet.Overall maximum building heightfor all types is thirty-five (35) feet. (E)Accessory structure height is a maximum of two (2) stories and twenty four (24)feet and may not be taller than the Principal Building.. ~Allowable floor height is a minimum of eight (8) feet, maximum of fourteen (14)feet. Uses. 4Z>Principalpermitted use is single-family attached only. cD0ne accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the accessory structure. Transparency.<iI)Aminimumof12%of thefrontandthe corner side Facades shall have transparent, non-reflective windows. 43 113 of 188 West Evanston Zonina Overlay XlV. Building Types: Townhouse 11 ~ Additional Semi-Pervious Surface. ••From &Corner Side Build-to Zones. ~Occupythe Corner. ~~Parking &Accessory Strucrure ••••••••Location. G>Maximum Building Coverage. C>Side Yard Setback. CiS>Maximum Number of Continuous Townhouses. A. Building Siting.(See Figure XIV-A) Multiple principal and accessory structures & uses are permitted on .single parcels; however, each building must meet.all reqUIrements. Note: Each building consists of multlple townhouse units. Street Frontage. ••Front and corner side Facades of the building units must be constructed within a Build-to Zone, located between fifteen (15) and thirty (30) feet from the front and corner side property line. •The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. •For every Townhouse Type II building unit on a Lot that meetsthe requirements of ••above, one (1) additional building unit may front on a courtyard or Open Space,or two (2) additional units may front Park District property. The courtyard or Open Space must be a minimum of thirty five (35) feet wide. CS>Building units may step back beyond adjacent units within the Build-to Zone in increments no greater than ten (10) feet. Side &Rear Yard Setbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. •Per street face, a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) continuous units are permitted to cluster without side yard Setbacks. ~The interior side of a building must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the interior side property line. S For multiple buildings on one parcel, a minimum of ten (10) feet is required between buildings. ~The rear of any buildings must be set back a minimumoffive (5) feet from the rear property line. BuildableArea. •Maximum Building Coverage shall be 50%of the Total Lot Area. S Maximum Impervious Site Coverage shall be 55%of the Total Lot Area. SAn additional 15%of the Total Lot Area may be Semi -Pervious. .No minimum lot size is required. Parking &Garages. '8 Parking is permitted in the rear yard or within the rear portion of the Principal Building. Detached garages are not permitted. <8 Parking and garage areas must be screened from all street faces by buildings.Garage doors must face the alley or rear of the Lot. Driveways &Access. •Driveway and garage access is permitted only off public alleys. •"Where no public alley is shown,one driveway per development area is permitted off of Green Bay Road or Foster Avenue as shown on the Regulating Plans. 44 114 of 188 West Evanston Zoninq Overlay XIVBuilding Types:lownhouse II ~ Overall Building (to midimof roof ,10 e Height. ~ Street Face Building Height.~ :i 4Z>Permitted Use. Area of No Transparency. Principal Entrance Location.~ Building&FloorHeights. G3D Principal Building height at the front street face shall be a minimum of two (2) stories and a maximum of two and a half (2 1/2) stories. Maximum building height at the front street face is thirty five (35) feet. ~A maximum of three and a half (3 1/2) stories is permitted if the top floor is set back from the Front Facade a minimumofeight (8) feet.Overall maximum building height is forty two (42) feet. caE>Allowable floor height is a minimum of eight (8) feet, maximum offourteen (14) feet. Uses. ~Principal permitted use is single-family attached only. ~Parking is permitted internallyinthe rear of the building; a minimum of fifteen (15)feet from the Front Facade of the Ground Story must be occupied byapermitted use other than parking. Transparency. ~Aminimumof12%ofthefront and the corner side Facades shall have transparent,non-reflective windows. Allowable Floor Height. ~AllowableCapType. cD On front and corner side Facades,no rectangular area greater than 30%of the Facade per floor may be blank,without Transparency. BuildingEntrance.S The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side Facade. Allowable Cap &BaseTypes. (See Sections V and VI)<II>Allowable Cap Types are theparapet and pitched roof.Towers are permitted onunits at street termini per the Regulating Plans. <iIi)Allowable Base Types are stoop and porch. Facade Design. cDEach building, consisting of multiple connected units must be treated with a different design than adjacent buildings, such as a change in material color, Cap Type, or Base Type. Building Materials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. CSFacades must be constructed of a durable,natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided, and if used limited to the extent possible.cD Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies.ce Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 45 115 of 188 West Evanston Zonina Overlay >N.Building Types: Townhouse III ••Front &Corner Side Build-to Zones. ••Occupy the Corner. •• Additional Semi-Pervious Surface. ~SideYard Setback. S>Parking &Accessory Structure Location. G>Maximum Building Coverage. str et CiE)MaximumNumber of ContinuousTownhouses. A.Building Siting.(See Figure XV-A) Multiple principal and accessory structures & uses are permitted on single parcels; however, each building must meet all requirements.Note: Each building consists of multiple townhouse units. StreetFrontage. ••Front and corner side Facades of the building units must be constructed within a Build-to Zone,located between ten (10) and twenty five (25) feet from the front and corner side property line. ••The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. ••For every five (5) Townhouse Type II building units on a Lot that meets the requirements of (3)above, three (3) additional building units may front on a courtyard or Open Space.The courtyard or Open Space must be a minimum of thirty five (35) feet wide. ••Building units may step back beyond adjacentunits within the Build-to Zone in increments no greater than ten (10) feet. Side &Rear Yard Setbacks.Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. CiE)Per street face, a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) continuous units are permitted to cluster without side yard Setbacks. ~The interior side of buildings must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the interior side property line. t»For multiple buildings on one parcel, a minimum of ten (10) feet is required between buildings. CSt>T?e. rear of any buildings must be set back a mInImum of five(5)feet from the rear property line. Buildable Area. •Maximum Building Coverage shall be 50%of the Total Lot Area. ~Maximum Impervious Site Coverage shall be 55%of the Total Lot Area. ••An additional 15 %of the Total Lot Area may be Semi -Pervious. •No minimum lot size is required. Parking & Garages. ~Parking is permitted in the rear yard or within the rear portion of the Principal Building. Detached garages are not permitted . 4DParking and garage areas must be screened from all street faces by buildings.Garage doors must face the alley or rear of the Lot. Driveways & Access. ~Driveway and garage access is permitted only off public alleys. ~Where no public alley is shown, one driveway per development area is permitted off of Foster Avenue as shown on the Regulating Plans. 46 116 of 188 West Evanston Zoninq Overlav Y0J.Building Types: lownhouse rll ~Overall Building ('d Height.'0 ml ~ Allowable Floor Height. ~Internal Parking. HalfS,ory above grade. <IE)Area of No Transparency. Principal Entrance Location.-------~ Building&Floor Heights. ••Building height at the street face shall be a minimum of two (2) stories and a maximum of two and a half (2 112)stories. Maximum building height at the front street face is thirty five (35) feet. ~ A maximum of three (3) stories is permitted if the top floor is set back from the Front Facade a minimum of eight (8) feet. Overall maximum building height is forty two (42) feet.4S>Allowable floor height is a minimum of eight (8) feet, maximum of fourteen (14) feet. Uses. ~ Principal permitted use is single-family attached only.eS>Parking is permitted internally in the rear of the building; a minimumoffifteen (15) feet from the Front Facade of the Ground Story must be occupied by a permitted use other than parking. Transparency. ~A minimum of 12% of the front and the corner side Facades shall have transparent, non-reflective windows. cD On front and corner side Facades, no rectangular area greater than 30% of the Facade per floor may be blank,without Transparency. BuildingEntrance .caE>The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side Facade. Allowable Cap &Base Types. (See Sections V and VI)c:;a.Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof.Towers are permitted on units at street termini per the Regulating Plans.<S>Allowable Base Types are stoop and porch. Facade Design.eD Each building,consisting of multiple connected units must be treated with a different design than adjacent buildings, such as a change in material color, Cap Type, or Base Type. BuildingMaterials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. <SFacades must be constructed of a durable,natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided,and if used limited to the extent possible. <D Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies . •Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 47 117 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XVI.Building Types: Small-Lot House "Front &Corner Side Build-to Zones. "Encroachment into Corner Side Yard. "Additional Semi-Pervious .Surface. ~Occupythe Corner. C>Parking &Accessory Strucrure Location. 1t----C>Interior Side YardISetback. 1(1) 1 l: :J G>Maximum Building Coverage. •• Front &Corner Side Build-to Zones. ~----C'5 Maximum Impervious Coverage. Street Frontage. "Front and corner side Facades of all buildings must be constructed within a Build-to Zone, located between fifteen (15) and twenty five (25) feet from the front and corner side property line. ~The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building.C1E>One Principal Building is permitted per parcel. Side&Rear Yard Setbacks. Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. C>The interior side of a building must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the interior side property line. G>The rear of any building must be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the rear property line. Buildable Area. G>Maximum Building Coverage shall be 45%of the Total Lot Area. C'5 Maximum Impervious Site Coverage shall be 50%of the Total Lot Area.G>An additional 15%of the Total Lot Area may be Semi -Pervious. CS>No minimum lot size is required. Parking, Accessory Structures,&AccessoryUses. ~Surface parking and accessory structures &uses are permitted in the rear yard, a minimum of ten (10) feet from the back Facade of the Principal Building. "Accessory structures &uses are permitted within the corner side yard Build-to Zone,but may not extend into this yard beyond the face of the Principal Building. .Surface parking areas must be screened from all street faces by buildings. Driveways & Access. 4Jl)Driveway and garage access is permitted only off public alleys. 48 118 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XVI.Building Types:Small-Lot House ~Allowable Floor Height. (comidpoint of roof slope)) Ql C:::i ~Permitted Use. <SAreaofNo Transparency.c-.FacadeTransparency. <is>PrincipalEntrance Location. Building &FloorHeights. ~ Principal Building height at the front street face shall be a minimum of one and a half (1 1/2) stories and a maximum of two and a half (2 1/2) stories. ~ On parapet buildings, a maximum of 3 stories is permitted if the thirdfloor is set back from the Front Facade a minimum of eight(8) feet.CS>Overall maximum building height is thirty-five (35) feet. ~ Accessory structure height is a maximum of two (2) stories and twenty four (24) feet, and may not be taller than the Principal Building. ~Allowable floor height is a minimum of eight (8) feet, maximum offourteen (14) feet. Uses. ~ Principal permitted use is single family. ~ One accessory dwelling unit is permitted in the accessory structure. Transparency.c-.A minimumof12%of the front and the corner side Facades shall have transparent, non-reflective windows. (to midpoint of roof (slope)~AccessoryStructure Height. AllowedAccessory DwellingUnit. ~Allowable FloorHeight. <SOn front and corner side Facades, no rectangular area greater than 30% of the Facade per floor may be blank, without Transparency. BuildingEntrance. <is>The principal entrance must be located on the front or corner side Facade. Allowable Cap &Base Types. (See Sections V and VI) Gll>Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof. Towers are permitted only on end units or units at street termini, per the Regulating Plans. <IE>Allowable Base Types are stoop and porch. Facade Design. CS>Each building must be treated with a different design than adjacent buildings, such as change in material color, Cap Type, or Base Type. Building Materials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. <S Facades must be constructed of a durable, natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided, and if used limited to the extent possible. CS>Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3") in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. CS>Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 49 119 of 188 West Evanston Zoninq Overlay XVII.Building Types: Iconic Building Front &Corner Side Build-to Zone. RearYard Setback. G>Maximum Impervious Coverage. ~Parking Location. tD Additional Semi-Pervious Surface. ~Front &Corner Side Build-to Zone. 1:-Min. Lot Width~ Street Frontage. "This Building Type may only occur on corner parcels with two intersecting street frontages. ~Front and corner side building Facades must be constructed within Build-to Zones located between five (5) and twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. ~ The intersection of the front and corner side Build- to Zones (the corner) must be occupied by a building. ••Areas not occupied with building along the front, corner side, and interior side property lines shall not be paved. C>Multiple buildings may be constructed on a single lot; however,the minimum standards in Requirement A.2 must be met. Side &Rear Yard Setbacks.Applies to both principal and accessory structures &uses. CIi>Interior Side yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. ~ Rear yard Setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. Buildable Area. .Maximum Impervious Site Coverage (including Building Coverage) shall be 60%of Total Lot Area. C)An additional 20%of the Total Lot Area may be Semi-Pervious. ~Minimum Lot Width is fifry (50) feet.No minimum lot size is required. Off-StreetParking &Loading. "Parking is permitted in the rear and side yards of a lot, but may not extend beyond the face of the Principal Building into front and corner side Build-to Zones. Driveways &Access. $;Driveways must be accessed off an alley,if available. 481£alley access is not available, one (1) driveway per street frontage is permitted. ~Driveway location shall be at least fifry (50) feet from the intersection of the front and corner side property lines. B. Height &Use Requirements.(See Figure XVII-B) Building &Floor Heights. ~Building height shall be a minimum of one (1) Story and a maximum of two (2) stories. Overall maximum building height is thirty (30) feet. 50 120 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XVII.Building Types: Iconic Building c»Overall Building Height..~)...J ~ ~otl•..c:e "'Allowable Upper Floors Height. ~Allowable Ground Story Height. ~Facade Transparency. <S Principal Entrance Location. ~Allowable Ground Story height. a. With a one (1) Story building, the minimum is fifteen (15) feet, maximum is thirty (30) feet. b.With a two (2) Story building, the minimum is nine (9) feet, maximum is fifteen (15) feet. "'Allowable upper floor height is a minimum of nine (9) feet, maximum of fourteen (14) feet. Uses. ~Only churches, synagogues, religious assembly, community or cultural uses, libraries, and government or civic uses are permitted in an Iconic Building Type. 4S>Maximum Gross Square Footage of any use withR4 base zoning is 10,000 square feet.4Z>Maximum Gross Square Footage of any use with B2 base zoning is 10,000; up to 40,000 square feet may be permitted as a special use. C. Facade Requirements.(See Figure XVII-C) Transparency. ~A minimum of 10% of the front and corner side Facade,measured floor to floor,shall have non- reflective windows. ~AllowableCapType. Building Entrance. <S The principal entrance must located on the front or corner side building Facade.Entrances at the corner of a building satisfy this requirement. Allowable Cap & Base Types. (See Sections V and VI) CiE>Allowable Cap Types are the parapet and pitched roof. A tower and spire is permitted. Other Cap ~Types may be approved by Special Use. ~Allowable Base Type is stoop. BuildingMaterials. Applicable to street Facades or Facades visible from a street. ~Facades must be constructed of a durable,natural material.False materials intended to look like other materials shall be avoided,and if used limited to the extent possible. ~Concrete masonry units, bricks over three inches (3")in height, and exterior insulation and finishing systems (EIFS) are not permitted. Balconies. CS Projecting balconies are not permitted on street face Facades. 51 121 of 188 122 of 188 Subsections XVIII-XXII: Landscape Standards 123 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay 54 124 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XVIII.Landscape Standards:Parking Lot Frontage Buffer. Intent.To lessen the visual impact of parking areas visible from the street, the following is required. A.Applicability. These requirements apply to all properties in the Overlay District where a parking area is located adjacenttoavehicular right-of-way. 1. Exceptions.The exceptions to the application of the frontage buffer are: a. Single family residences. b. Parking areas along alleys. 2. As part of the site plan and appearance review process, the City may reduce these screening requirements through crediting existing landscaping within the proposed buffer area that is reasonably equivalent in its screening characteristics. B.Requirements.These standards are illustrated in Figure XVIII-A . ••Depth. The landscape buffer shall consist of an area seven (7) feet in depth . ••Location.Thebuffer should be located between street facing property line and the parking area except: a. When the parking area is located adjacent to any building, the frontage buffer must be located from the face of the adjacent building back to the parking area. The additional yard between the buffer and the front property line must be landscaped. ~Uses and Materials. Uses and materials other than those indicated are prohibited in the buffer. ~Trees. A shade tree must be planted a minimum of every sixty (60) feet within the seven (7) feet of required landscape buffer, located on the street side of the fence. a. The spacing of these trees shouldalternate with street trees so that the final effect is a staggered tree line. b. Acceptable trees for the landscape buffer are listed in Table XXII.A. ~Fence. A minimum of three (3) and a maximum of four (4) feet in height steel or PVC picket fence is required,located two (2) feet from the back of curb of the parking area. a. No other fence material is permitted. b. Fence colors are limited to black,grey, or dark green. c.Fence opacity must be no greater than 60%, no less than 30%. d. A gate opening of five (5) feet is permitted every one hundred (100) feet. ~Hedge. A continuous hedge is required on ~e street side of the fence, located between reqUIred trees and in front of parking areas.The hedge •Fence. -~ :'~'~'ii"-- Front Buffer Section. Figure XVIII-A: Parking Lot Frontage Buffer Plan &Section. must consist of individual shrubs with a minimum width of twenty-four (24) inches, spaced no more than thirty-six (36) inches on center. ••Vehicle Overhang. The fron~ o~rear bum~er overhang of vehicles parked Wlthm the parking area may encroach upon the required Setback up to a maximum distance of two (2) feet. ~Access. This screer:ir:~ requir~ment is.not to be interpreted as prohlbrung the mstallatlon of or provision for openings necessary for allowable access drives and walkways connecting to the public sidewalk. 55 125 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XIX. Landscape Standards: Side and Rear Yard Landscape Buffer. Intent. To minimize the impact that one land use may have on a neighboring land use, side and rear yard buffers are required to provide a transition between the uses. A. Applicability. Side and rear yard buffers are required as detailed in Table XIX.A.Buffers must be installed and maintained by the more intensive use on their Lot.As part of the site plan and appearance review process, the City may reduce the buffer requirements through crediting existing landscaping within the proposed buffer area that is reasonably equivalent in its screening characteristics. B.Requirements. These standards are illustrated in Figures XIX-A and XIX-B. ~Depth. Side and rear yard buffers are to be installed in an area five (5) feet in depth adjacent to rear and side property lines. ~Uses andMaterials.Uses and materials other than those indicated are prohibited in the side and rear yard buffer.caE>Trees.AIl trees planted in the landscape buffer area shall be shade trees (Refer Table XXII.A) with at least one tree planted every forty (40) feet within the five (5) feet of the buffer. C.Heavy Buffer Requirement.Typical requirements specific to the heavy buffer requirement are illustrated in Figure XIX-A. ~Hedge.A continuous double hedge is required, located between required trees. a. The double hedge must consist of two rows of individual shrubs with a minimum width of twenty-four (24) inch spaced no more than thirty-six (36) inch on center, mature height in one (1) year at twenty-four (24) inches. b.Aminimum of thirty(30) shrubs per every one hundred (100) feet of affected property line is required. D. Light Buffer Requirement.Typical light buffer requirements are illustrated in Figure XIX-B. ~Shrubs.Acontinuous shrub bed is required, located between required trees. a. The hedge must consist of individual shrubs with a minimum width of twenty-four(24) inches at installation, spaced no more than thirty-six (36) inches on center. b. A minimum of fifteen (15) shrubs per every one hundred (100) feet of property line is required. ----~I Screening Intensi Mixed Useor Flex .. ~~~~dingType Parking ~~~~:~:~~~I~vhe~~~S Heavy Any residential Building Type and Single Family homes outside the I Light overla .L 56 126 of 188 West Evanston Zoninq Overlay XIX. Landscape Standards: Side and Rear Yard Lanascape Buffer. •Ql•c ~I~ ~I! 4iID SideJR",,-lJ Buffer Zone. Side/Rear YardBuffer Plan. 4iID SideJRe,,--L Buffer Zone. {~J~Sh'deT= \.----.-J~ __ ~~_.~~~Hedge. Side/Rear Yard Buffer Section. ~---,(~('-'\4Z>Shade Tree. /' '0 I "'1L.ShrohB,d Side/RearYard Buffer Section. Figure XIX-A: Heavy Buffer requirement, Steel Fence and Hedge Combination. 57 127 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlayxx.Landscape Standards:Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. Intent.To provide shade, minimize paving and improve the aesthetic look of Parking Lots, the following standards apply. A.Applicability.Interior Parking Lot landscaping is required for all off-street Parking Lots. The requirements herein apply to all development. B.Requirements.Typical Parking Lot landscaping requirements are illustrated in Figure XX-A ~Terminal Ends of Free-Standing Rows. Landscape islands are required at the terminal ends of any free-standing rows or bays of parking. Free-standing rows or bays of parking are those that are not abutting the Parking Lot perimeter, and can have a single or double row of parking. ~Landscape Islands.A landscape island shall be provided every ninth parking space for rows of parking that are more than eight (8) spaces in length.There shall be no more than eight (8) continuous parking spaces in a row without a landscape island. ~Trees in Landscape Islands.Each landscape island must have one (1) shade tree planted within it.4Z>Internal Area Not Dedicated to Parking or Drive.Any space within the Parking Lot limits that is not dedicated to parking, loading or driveway path shall be landscaped. a. One (1) shade tree is required in such spaces for the first one-hundred fifty (150) square feet. b. Plus one (1) shade tree per each additional six- hundred fifty (650) square feet. (Ii>Tree Requirement per Parking Space. a.Each parking space must be entirely located within fifty (50) feet of a tree on the interior of the Parking Lot. b. A minimum of one (1) tree must be planted within the parking lot interior for every three parking spaces. c. Trees and landscaping located outside of the Parking Lot interior, in the side and rear yard buffer, or in the frontage buffer do not count toward any of the requirements of this Section. ~Parking Lot Interior.The Parking Lot interior is defined as the area dedicated to parking on a given parcel as measured from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. ~Landscape Median.A landscape median is required in each free-standing bay of parking along the length of the bay of parking. Terminal Ends of Free-Standing Rows. Landsca pe Islands . •-(--------------(Ii>Tree Requirement per Parking Space. -_._-------------------------------------\---------------------------/------------------------ 58 128 of 188 West Evanston Zonina Overlay XXI. Landscape Standards: Screening of Open Storage, 'FiefuseAreas, &Utility Appurtenances. Opaque Screen Wall. Opaque Gate. Figure XXI-A: Screening of Open Storage and Refuse Areas. Intent. To reduce the visual impact of open storage or refuse areas from public areas and adjacent properties, the following standards apply. A.Applicability. All dumpsters, open storage, refuse areas, and utility appurtenances located in the Overlay District. B.Requirements. Typical open storage or refuse screening is illustrated in Figure XXI-A. ••Opaque Screen Wall.An opaque screen wall (vertical structured barrier to visibility at all times such as a fence or wall) is required around three (3) sides of the dumpster and trash bin area.CS Screen WallHeight. The height of the screen wall shall be the higher of the following: a. The height of the use to be screened, b. Six (6) feet, or c. A height sufficient in the judgment of the City to accomplish the objective of the screen, as determined through the site plan and appearance review process.4aE>Visible Openings. Openings visible from the public way or adjacent properties must be furnished with opaque gates.\e Location within Parking Lot. If refuse area is located within a larger paved area, such as a Parking Lot,landscape islands must be located on three sides of the area. a. One (1) shade tree must be located in one of these landscape areas. b. This tree, if located within fifty (50) feet of a parking space may be utilized to meet XX. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. C.Requirements. Screening of Utility Appurtenances. 1.Large Private Mechanical Equipment. Private mechanical equipment visible from the right-of- way and that is equal to or greater than four (4) feet in height and is equal to or greater than six (6) feet in anyone direction shall be fenced with opaque wood or masonry on all sides facing the right-of-way. 2.Small Private Mechanical Equipment. Private mechanical equipment smaller than four (4) feet in height shall have landscape screening and shrub bed containing shrubs spaced no more than thirty-six (36) inches on center. 3. City Review. Utility appurtenances located adjacent to right-of-way shall be reviewed by the City for required screening. 59 129 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XXII.Landscape Standards:Street Trees A.Applicability. Thefollowing standards apply to the installation of street trees. B.Requirements. 1. Street TreeSize. All Street Trees are required to be minimum two and a half (2 1/2) inches in caliper when installed. Canopy and Height to be consistent with American Standards for Nursery Stock, as published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association or any successor organization, for tree type. Adjacent to the Mixed Use and Flex Building Types, minimum clear branch height is seven (7) feet. 2. Street TreeType.Approved species of Street Trees, listed by type are included in Table XXILA. No species other than those included in this list may be planted as Street Trees. Species may vary along Block faces, however, spacing should be consistent. 3.Street TreeSpacing.Street trees shall be planted as follows. a. Each parcel is required to have one (1) tree for every sixty (60) feet of street frontage and a minimum of one (1) Street Tree per street frontage. b. Recommended spacing for trees is shown in Figure XXII-A. c. Distance from Curb and Sidewalk. Where the distance from the back of the Curb to the edge of the Right-of-Way is less than nine (9) feet, no Street Tree is required. e. Trees shouldbecentered in the parkway area and planted no closer than two (2) feet from a curb or sidewalk.Permeable pavers may be utilized for sidewalks where an impervious sidewalk would not allow tree planting. 4. TreeWells.In District WE 6 and 7, where there is no parkway, tree wells shall be utilized. a. For tree wells smaller than four (4) feet wide and six (6) feet in length, open pit is not permitted. b. The openingmust be covered with a tree grate or pervious pavement. c. The opening in a tree grate for the trunk must be expandable. 5.Distance from Street Comers and Fire Hydrants. a. No Street Tree shall be planted closer than thirty (35) feet to any street corner, measured from the point of nearest intersecting Curbs or Curb lines. b. No Street Tree shall be planted closer than ten (10) feet to any fire hydrant. 6.Utilities.Coordinate with utility owners for tree planting adjacent to utilities. 60 130 of 188 West Evanston Zoning Overlay XXII.Landscape Standards: Street Trees Genus Species Var.I Cui.Common Name Alnus qlutinosa Black Alder Betula lenta Sweet Birch Betula niqra River Birch Caroinus betulus European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Fastiqiata European Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam or Blue Corvlus colurna Turkish Filbert Ostrva virqiniana American Hophornbeam Cercidioh iaponicum Katsuratree Faaus svlvatica European Beech Faaus svlvatica Atropunicea Purple European Beech IOuercus alba White Oak IOuercus bicolor Swamp White Oak IOuercus coccinea Scarlet Oak IOuercus imbricaria Shinale Oak uercus macrocaroa Bur Oak uercus muehlenberaii Chinkapin Oak uercus prinus Chestnut Oak uercus robur Enqlish Oak uercus rubra Red Oak uercus velutina Black Oak Ginkqo biloba Ginkqo or Maidenhair tree Liquidam stvraciflua Sweet Gum Aesculus flava (octandra)Yellow Buckeve Carva ovata Shaqbark Hickorv Ulmus carpinifolia Pioneer Pioneer elm Ulmus carpinifolia Homestead Homestead elm Ulmus carpinifolia Reqal Reqal elm Metaseau lalvptostroboides Dawn Redwood Maanolia x soulanaiana Saucer Maqnolia Svrinaa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac Malus floribunda Japanese Flowerina Crab Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberrv Celtis laeviqata Suqarberrv Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Crataequs crusqalli var. inermis Cockspur Hawthorne Faqus svlvatica Atropunicea Purple leafed European Beech Faqus svlvatica Dawvck European Beech Larix decidua European Larch Phelloden amurense Amur Corktree Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore Maanolia acuminata Cucumbertree Maqnolia Nvssa svlvatica Black Gum Maackia amurensis Amur Maackia Faaus arandifolia American Beech Cotinus obovatus American Smoketree Chionant virqinicus White Fringetree 61 131 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/1/8 Hello Johanna (/myapa/) (/)My APA (/myapa/) Log Out (/logout/) MENU Search Home (/)  > Knowledge Center (/knowledgecenter/)  > APA Publications (/publications/)  > Planning Magazine (/planning/)  > A Crack in the Code? The hoped-for cure for use-based zoning ills hasn't quite taken o. But form-based coding’s emphasis on form has had a big impact on modern zoning. Planning October 2016 IN THIS ISSUE: A Crack in the Code By Alan Mammoser, AICP Enter keyword or phrase 132 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/2/8 If form-based coding is going to lead a long hoped-for revolution in community planning, it has a way to go. It came on the scene more than a decade ago when adherents promoted it as a completely new planning and regulatory system, one cleansed of the sins of Euclidean zoning. It promised to open a high road to successful, high-quality placemaking. Now, according to a collaborative study led by Hazel Borys of PlaceMakers LLC, there are just over 600 form-based codes adopted or in progress. In other words, just about three percent of the 20,000 municipalities in the U.S. have one. So what happened? Adoption of form-based codes has been slow going and the results have been mixed. Some form-based codes have shown success while others have not fullled their communities' expectations. A common objection is the cost — or perceived cost — to develop a form-based code, a process that could mean hiring a team of specialized consultants. Another, related to this, is the perception that a form- based code requires extensive community planning workshops or charrettes. Yet another is that communities fear losing control over approvals, since form-based codes are oen praised for allowing easier administrative approval of development applications. And then there's the term itself. Its meaning is opaque to nonplanners, and among practitioners the phrase "form-based code" is oen felt to be ambiguous. According to the Form-Based Codes Institute, they are regulatory (not advisory) codes primarily concerned with urban form rather than land use, with form standards keyed to specic places on a "regulating plan." Their purpose is to shape public space. Yet many dispute the idea that they offer a complete solution to the problem of achieving good urban form. (For more on identifying and evaluating form-based codes, go to formbasedcodes.org/identifying- evaluating (http://formbasedcodes.org/identifying-evaluating).) Nevertheless, the form-based code movement has been part of a larger ow in the planning profession, a rising wave in professional practice that embraces urban form as a counter to formless sprawl. Form — which is to say, good urban form — has become an increasingly prevalent concern in development regulation, and is now coming into zoning codes in many interesting ways. But one size indeed does not t all, and planners are striving to nd regulatory approaches that t their communities' specic needs. The importance of form in modern zoning regulations is not in question, but will the term "form-based code" remain relevant for much longer? Back and forth on form-based codes Randall Arendt wrote of a proliferation of approaches to achieve better form, in an article for Planning last year ("Simplify that Code!" June, 2015: www.planning.org/planning/2015/jun/simplifythatcode.htm (/planning/2015/jun/simplifythatcode.htm)). A common concern, which Arendt addressed in his article, is the complexity and cost of the coding process. He became more aware of this while serving on a form- based code award jury, where he saw "codes running 250 to 350 pages and oen costing hundreds of thousands of dollars," he wrote. Indeed, form-based coding is oen associated with lengthy planning and public participation processes and expensive consultant fees. So Arendt looked at several towns' lower-cost efforts to achieve good urban form on their main streets and elsewhere. Some created pared-down form-based codes for very reasonable cost. Others were hesitant about form-based coding but found ways to achieve better form through the addition of a few basic design standards to their zoning: maximum front setbacks in downtowns, minimum heights in key places, limited block lengths, reduced on-site parking requirements, and a broader mix of permitted uses in blocks and buildings. "What's missing from this is the planning part of it," says Bill Spikowski, FAICP, of Arendt's short list of standards. Spikowski is a planning consultant and emeritus board member of the Form- Based Codes Institute. "Where should the buildings be? It's the planning that makes the difference, and that's why planning has always been a fundamental part of form-based coding." Spikowski acknowledges that it's an expensive endeavor, and that Arendt's review of incremental measures is helpful for communities. Still, in regard to cost, he says that practioners working in form- based codes aren't "larding the budget; we're trying to get to an informed public behind a plan." "It's the combination of public process and detailed design work that drives up the cost," says Joel Russell, a planning consultant and former executive director of the Form-Based Codes Institute. He's weary of a doctrinaire approach that requires extensive public participation linked to intensive design work. He likes Arendt's examples, and in fact worked on one of them — the creation of two adjacent form-based codes in neighborhoods of Beacon, New York (pop. 14,347). One of the coded areas, encompassing the main street, has no regulating plan. While a regulating plan that replaces a use-based zoning map is considered by some to be an indispensable component of a form-based code, Russell says that for Beacon they were able to make good progress on form without it. 133 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/3/8 "We didn't need it," he says, "because the area already has good 'bones' and the street system is ne."The other area, however, will eventually need a regulating plan — mostly to x its street network, he says. Russell questions other aspects of generally accepted formbased code orthodoxy, such as their much- vaunted capability to improve the development approval process. "There's a lot of room for things to go wrong, with a form-based code as with any other kind of code," he says. "A code is only as good as the willingness of a community to stand by it, to enforce it." While remaining a strong advocate, Russell While remaining a strong advocate, Russell takes exception even with the name. "I think the term 'form- based code' scares people," he says. "'Form-based' is such an abstract label that people read their worst fears into it. It evokes fear of high consultant fees, fear that it will favor one's opponents in contentious development issues, and just the plain old fear that adopting a type of document whose name one doesn't understand will cause confusion, delay, paralysis, and worse." Despite his qualms, Russell sees good work occurring with form-based codes — and with efforts to get urban form principles embodied in more conventional codes. "The point is that form is entering widely into regulatory codes, and nearly all communities are taking it seriously," he says. Taking a crack at code reform "PlaceMakers has counted 600-plus form-based codes, and of these, how many are effective?" asks Lynn Richards, president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism. "There are issues with form-based codes. There's no silver bullet." "Look, there are a number of coding practices in the United States today," she says. "There are different varieties of Euclidean codes, form-based codes, hybrid codes, and other special types of codes." CNU, she says, doesn't advocate for any one of these. "Instead we want to enable a streamlined regulatory environment that fosters the development of great places, using all the tools in the toolbox." Richards's nondoctrinaire, inclusive approach led CNU to embrace a new effort called the Project for Code Reform. It will likely begin with a workshop this fall, initiated by Jim Tischler, FAICP, who is Michigan's community development policy director. The Michigan workshop will bring representatives of local governments together with coders of different disciplines. "It's a handson approach with no preconceived solutions to creating the right regulations for different communities," says Richards. Dan Slone, an attorney and a Congress for the New Urbanism board member, emphasizes the value of engaging different planning perspectives in the nascent project. "We want to broaden the toolkit and neutralize the tools by avoiding dogmatic statements," he says. "And we want to understand what communities are doing now, not as a desired end state, but as a beginning to building better places." Communities take control to lower cost One community with a "pared-down" code mentioned in Arendt's article is Dover, New Hampshire (pop. 30,880). Steve Whitman, AICP, principal of Resilience Planning & Design, based in Plymouth, New Hampshire, worked closely with Dover Assistant City Manager Chris Parker, AICP, who oversees planning and development, on codes for several areas of the city beginning with the central business district. In craing the code, the city sought to preserve the good urban character of its center and avoid singlestory minimalls. It took just a year to survey assets and needs, interview stakeholders, hold a design charrette, and dra the code, says Whitman. The new code, adopted in 2009, incorporates strong form elements, including a shi from set-back minimums to build-to lines, and from a focus on use to building size, placement, and massing. A two-story minimum and requirement to put parking behind or on the side of buildings mitigate the potential damage caused by strip malls. "The central business district code does not have a full-blown regulating plan," says Whitman. "But it features core elements of a form-based code woven into the existing zoning ordinance." Parker has been pleased with the results. He points to nine project approvals and ve completed projects, four of them multistory, mixed-use buildings. "The code has allowed the community to embrace character-based and context-based zoning," he says. "But we had to drop the term 'form-based code,' because it was not something that property owners understood, it didn't resonate." Instead, the community used the term "context-sensitive zoning" when it amended the zoning code in 2010. Parker also appreciates the formula of a consultant working closely with a staff planner. "We dedicated the resources of in-house and in-kind work to off set the limited resources we had available," he says, noting that the planning department's involvement le staff well prepared to administer the code. Whitman beneted from the experience, expanding his practice by developing a streamlined process for coding small to mid-size New England towns. An activist's overlay Sandy Sorlien has been working in the realm of form-based codes for years. As the principal of Smartcode Local, she is closely involved in ongoing updates of the SmartCode form-based code template and she helps show communities how to use it. (The SmartCode is a model code based on "transect zones" that specify gradations of urban intensity and regulate appropriate character.)134 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/4/8 Recently, Sorlien found herself in a grassroots rezoning effort to conserve the character of her own neighborhood in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission worked with a consulting team led by Clarion Associates in a major zoning code overhaul that consolidated base zoning and overlay districts, incorporated improvements in form and design controls, and created a shorter, improved list of permitted uses. The new code became effective in 2012. (The commission won the National Planning Excellence Award for a Planning Agency from APA in 2015: www.planning.org/planning/2016/apr/planningagency (/planning/2016/apr/planningagency/).) Since then, Sorlien has been impressed with the results. "There are good form elements in the new Philadelphia code, for sure," says Sorlien, who had years earlier been invited to talk to the planning commission about how form-based codes work. "It has much more form control and more helpful graphics than the old code." She's seen excellent inll development, traditional in form though not necessarily in style, in near-in neighborhoods such as Northern Liberties and Fishtown. But she also saw that the code's focus on form mostly concerned the central area, and was not sufciently protecting her northwest Roxborough neighborhood. New town houses were being built with driveways and garage fronts, breaking up the traditional city environment. "The zoning was disconnected from the reality of a walkable block," she says. "New development was becoming more and more auto-oriented, which can happen lot by lot until whole blocks are ruined." She worked with her neighborhood association, and over the course of two years, they were able to create two Neighborhood Conservation Overlays that were successfully added to the zoning code. Sorlien calls them "lean overlays," each just a page and a half with map, intent, and a few key standards. They address frontage to control garage placement, limit curb cuts, and try to ensure the survival of a signature Philadelphia form — the front stoop. Despite positive developments in Philadelphia, Sorlien says she would prefer a citywide application of the SmartCode, as occurred in Miami. "Overlays are like a stopgap," she says. "With transect zones (as applied by the SmartCode template) zoning occurs in terms of human habitat and character, and there can be different habitats in an area, which can evolve gradually to higher density. It's quite ne grain." Like Russell, she is a form-based code advocate who thinks there is a problem with the term. "In my work, I talk about 'type' and 'character', and I talk about the form of buildings and their frontages," she says. "But I hesitate to use the term 'form-based code,' because I nd that phrase to be confusing." Use and form: separate but equal "It's all semantics," says Lee Einsweiler, principal of Code Studio in Austin, Texas, expressing his skepticism with arguments that there are only a few set ways to foster good urban form. "There have been elements of form in zoning since the beginning, since New York in 1916." Einsweiler's rm is leading the re:code LA project, an initiative to rewrite the Los Angeles's zoning code for the rst time since 1946. The new code will need the capacity to efciently handle dozens of approvals annually in some districts. "The challenge is to create what we call 'straight zoning,'" he says, referring to an effort to create a zoning tool kit for an immense area that can be managed at staff level. They're bringing form elements strongly into the new code. "We're putting form on a par with use, much more consistently than in the current zoning," says Tom Rothmann, principal city planner with the Los Angeles Department of City Planning. "We'll also be dealing with use very much in the new code," he adds. "Both form and use will receive much better treatment than in the current code, where we use a lot of overlays, special districts, and other tricks to ne-tune the zoning." Their approach is to separate form and use in the new code, employing what Einsweiler calls "a very bright line" between use and form standards. "The form pieces are envelope-like, avoiding architectural style prescriptions," Einsweiler explains. "But they deal with mass, bulk, and frontages. They tell how buildings relate to the street with setback and height, and frontage for some details, in a way that can achieve good results across the city." The proposed zoning system will mix and match form and use elements or "packages" through a rezoning process. Rezoning will occur citywide, led by staff planners aer the new code is adopted. The mix-and- match system, with a streamlined use table, will give planners a broad palette to work with, whether they're planning for areas around new Metro stations or working in the vast swathes of single-family residential districts that cover half the city's area. Planners will work with communities in the city's 35 planning areas, suggesting appropriate combinations of form and use in each area for city council approval. "The new system will give them premade elements to choose from, so they can focus on all the right things, whether on use or on form, according to community needs," says Einsweiler. "We're excited about it as a framework." 135 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/5/8 As part of re:code LA, Einsweiler's team has been working closely with the city's planners on a concurrent remapping effort of two downtown districts. In these, he sees a need for perhaps 26 form districts and 20 use districts, with just over 40 combinations of these needed for the downtown area. It's greatly reduced from the 129 zones in the base zoning and overlays there now. Neighborhood Conservation Kit The NCK project won a 2015 Knight Cities Challenge award to create templates and teach residents to create their own Neighborhood Conservation Overlays, which are short, locally calibrated additions to the Philadelphia Zoning Code. The purpose is to protect local character and walkability. 136 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/6/8 Neighborhood Conservation Kit interns hired through the Knight grant head o for Urban Survey training. Photo by Sandy Sorlien. 137 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/7/8 Suburban-style front-loading garages and parking pads don't suit neighborhoods used to stoops, porches, or gardens. Photo by Sandy Sorlien. 138 of 188 2/14/2018 A Crack in the Code? https://www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/crackinthecode/8/8 One of the first projects that complies with an NCO in Philadelphia's Ridge Park neighborhood. Photo by Sandy Sorlien. A code by any other name . . . Clearly, zoning and coding today is a discipline in ux, with practitioners working out different ways to embrace a common concern for form. As more codes of different type show success in guiding good urban form, it may be that the need for a phrase such as "form-based code" will fade. A range of regulatory approaches, t to the specic needs of diverse communities, will encompass form as common practice. Joel Russell sees a powerful trend in this direction. "A lot of form principles are being gradually integrated into standard practice," he says, including code revisions. In retrospect, Bill Spikowski believes that the idea that formbased coding would become dominant practice was never realistic. "Form-based coding remains a movement limited to a small number of places, which have the money for it, and have the economy for expected development," he says. "But where it has occurred, the results on the ground have been very good," he adds. Alan Mammoser is a Chicago-based writer and regional planner. RESOURCES "Legal Issues with Form-Based Codes," a two-part series in The Commissioner Part One: Denitions and authority, August/September 2016: www.planning.org (/planning/2016/aug/thecommissioner/)/planning/2016/aug/thecommissioner/ (/planning/2016/aug/thecommissioner/) Part Two: Constitutionality and litigation, October 2016: www.planning.org/planning/2016/oct/thecommissioner/ (/planning/2016/oct/thecommissioner/) 139 of 188 Downtown Districts Main Street Corridors Suburban Corridor (urbanizable) Downtown Adjacent Neighborhood Main Street Adjacent Neighborhood Parking Stage 1 1.Parking must be located behind buildings, in structures, or on the street. 2.Parking is not required for uses within the main street corridor. a.Alt: Reduce minimum on-site parking requirements. Stage 2 1.Shared parking is permitted between uses within 800 feet of each other. 2.Automobile access must be from alleys where available. 3.Service access should be from alleys if available. 4.Service access should be from alleys if available. Stage 1 1.Parking must be located behind buildings, in structures, or on the street. 2.Parking is not required for uses within the main street corridor. a.Alt: Reduce minimum on-site parking requirements. Stage 2 1.Shared parking is permitted between uses within the main street corridor. 2.Automobile access should be shared between adjacent lots. 3.Automobile access must be from alleys where available. 4.Service access should be from alleys if available. Stage 1 1.Require perimeter landscaping or architectural treatment where parking exists between the building and the sidewalk. 2.Drive-thru lanes are not permitted between the building and the sidewalk. Additional Considerations 1.Surface lots shall not be located on the corner of a block. 2.Automobile access should be shared between adjacent lots. 3.Shared parking is permitted. 4.Parking must be located behind or to the side of buildings. 5.Sprawl condition (Ex: Telegraph): No more than a single bay of parking is permitted in the front for new development. The remainder may be located in the rear or side. a.Automobile access must be from side streets where available. b.Automobile access is limited in width to X. Stage 1 1.Automobile access must be from alleys where available. 2.Garages must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the building facade except along side streets. Stage 2 1.Off-street parking is not required. a.Alt: Reduce minimum parking to 1 vehicle per unit for single family residential uses and 0.5 vehicles per unit for multi-family residential uses. Stage 1 1.Automobile access must be from alleys where available. 2.Garages must be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the building facade except along side streets. Stage 2 1.Off-street parking is not required. a.Alt: Reduce minimum parking to 1 vehicle per unit for single family residential uses and 0.5 vehicles per unit for multi-family residential uses.Frontages Stage 1 1.A build-to zone is established within a range of 0 ft. minimum to 15 ft. maximum from the front property line. 2.Every building must have a functional entry along a sidewalk. 3.Blank walls longer than 30 feet are prohibited along sidewalks. 4.Ground floor retail uses must have a minimum of 50% clear glass along sidewalks. Stage 2 1.Buildings must occupy a minimum of 70% of the width of the lot within the build-to zone. Stage 1 1.A build-to zone is established within a range of 0 ft. minimum to 15 ft. maximum from the front property line. 2.Every building must have a functional entry along a sidewalk. 3.Blank walls longer than 30 feet are prohibited along sidewalks. 4.Ground floor retail uses must have a minimum of 50% clear glass along sidewalks. Stage 2 1.Buildings must occupy a minimum of 70% of the width of the lot within the build-to zone. 2.Ground floor facades must have a retail frontage for all uses. Stage 1 1.The minimum front setback is 5 ft. 2.Every building must have a functional entry visible and accessible from the sidewalk. 3.Blank walls longer than 50 feet are prohibited facing sidewalks. Additional Considerations 1.Ground floor retail uses must have a minimum of 30% clear glass along sidewalks. 2.Buildings must occupy a minimum of 70% of the width of the lot along the front setback line. 3.Ground floor facades must have a retail frontage for all uses. Stage 1 1.The front setback must match buildings on an adjacent parcel. 2.Buildings must have a functioning entrance facing the sidewalk. Stage 2 1.Buildings must occupy a minimum of 50% of the width of the lot along the front setback line. 2.Townhouses and multi-family buildings are exempt from design standards requiring vertical or horizontal alignment changes. Stage 1 1.The front setback must match buildings on an adjacent parcel. 2.Buildings must have a functioning entrance facing the sidewalk. Stage 2 1.Buildings must occupy a minimum of 50% of the width of the lot along the front setback line. 2.Townhouses and multi-family buildings are exempt from design standards requiring vertical or horizontal alignment changes. Uses Stage 1 1.Simplify use categories to retail, office, lodging, residential, civic, institutional, and industrial; include a list of prohibited uses. 2.A mix of uses are permitted but not required within buildings and parcels. 3.Retail is not required on ground floors. Stage 2 1.Temporary uses are permitted for a period of two years; temporary use permits may be renewed. 2.Parking as a primary use should be publicly accessible. 3.Residential uses are permitted. Stage 1 1.Simplify use categories to retail, office, lodging, residential, civic, institutional, and industrial; include a list of prohibited uses. 2.A mix of uses are permitted but not required within buildings and parcels. 3.Retail is not required on ground floors. Stage 2 1.Temporary uses are permitted for a period of two years; temporary use permits may be renewed. 2.Parking as a primary use should be publicly accessible. 3.Residential uses are permitted except at the ground floor along the front lot line. Stage 1 1.Encourage temporary uses to activate unoccupied lot frontages. 2.Residential uses are permitted except at the ground floor within 20 feet of the front lot line. Additional Considerations 1.Simplify use categories to retail, office, lodging, residential, civic, institutional, and industrial; include a list of prohibited uses. Stage 1 1.All residential uses are permitted. 2.Permit home occupations by-right. (requires local calibration) Stage 2 1.Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted. 2.Consider permitting small scale neighborhood commercial within the neighborhood. (requires local calibration) Stage 1 1.Multi-family and attached single-family residential is permitted within 500 feet of Main Street Corridors. 2.Permit home occupations by-right. (requires local calibration) Stage 2 1.Accessory Dwelling Units are permitted. 2.Consider permitting small scale neighborhood commercial within the neighborhood. (requires local calibration)Form Stage 1 1.100% lot coverage is permitted. (provided coordination with life safety standards) a.New buildings must have a minimum facade height of 24 feet along sidewalks. Stage 2 1.Establish transition requirements to adjacent districts. a.Ex: Buildings must step-down in height to meet the maximum height of the adjacent district within 50 feet of adjacent districts. b.Density and FAR restrictions do not apply to the downtown district. Note: The ability to build vertically will be directly tied to parking requirements, height, and setbacks. Stage 1 1.100% lot coverage is permitted. (provided coordination with life safety standards) 2.New buildings must have a minimum facade height of 24 feet along sidewalks. Stage 2 1.Establish transition requirements to adjacent districts. a.Ex: Buildings must step-down in height to meet the maximum height of the adjacent district within 50 feet of adjacent districts. 2.Density and FAR restrictions do not apply to the main street district. Note: The ability to build vertically will be directly tied to parking requirements, height, and setbacks. Stage 1 1.Liner buildings are permitted along the front lot line despite existing site development standards. Liner building must have clear glass for a minimum of 50% of the ground floor facade along the sidewalk. Additional Considerations 2.New development or remodels greater than 50% in value or building area must bring the building and site design elements into greater compliance with Main Street Corridor standards for Frontages and Form. Stage 1 1.Existing lots with dwellings made non- conforming by zoning standards specifying minimum lot size or dimension are hereby deemed to be conforming lots. 2.Stage 2 1.Consider changing the minimum lot width or size to reflect existing lots. 2.Density and FAR restrictions do not apply. a.Note: Intensity is restricted by height and setback standards. 1.Stage 1 1.Existing lots with dwellings made non- conforming by zoning standards specifying minimum lot size or dimension are hereby deemed to be conforming lots. 2.Stage 2 1.Consider changing the minimum lot width or size to reflect existing lots. 2.Density and FAR restrictions do not apply. a.Note: Intensity is restricted by height and setback standards.Public Realm Stage 1 1.Maintain existing streets and alleys Stage 2 1.Travel lane width should not exceed 10’ unless a transit route 2.Establish on-street parking wherever possible 3.Return 1-way streets to 2-way where possible 4.Permit encroachments into public ROW 5.Implement your complete street policy into a design practice for downtown 6.Develop public realm standards for downtown including: a.Sidewalk widths b.On-street parking requirements c.Required street trees d.Pedestrian-scaled lighting 7.Options for off-site stormwater management including fee in lieu Stage 1 1.Maintain existing streets and alleys Stage 2 1.Travel lane width should not exceed 10’ unless a transit route 2.Establish on-street parking wherever possible 3.Return 1-way streets to 2-way where possible 4.Permit encroachments into public ROW 5.Implement your complete street policy into a design practice for downtown 6.Develop public realm standards for downtown including: a.Sidewalk widths b.On-street parking requirements c.Required street trees d.Pedestrian-scaled lighting e.Options for off-site stormwater management including fee in lieu Stage 1 1.Maintain existing streets and alleys perpendicular to the corridor. Additional Considerations 1.Establish a minimum spacing standard for streets and paths perpendicular to the corridor. 2.Implement your complete street policy into design practice for you corridor context. 3.Develop public realm standards for: a.Sidewalk widths b.On-street parking c.Pedestrian-scaled lighting in selected corridor segments d.Options for off-site stormwater management including fee in lieu Stage 1 1.Maintain existing streets and alleys. Stage 2 1.Upon street improvements, reduce lane widths to reflect a target speed of 20 MPH or less. 2.Permit yield streets 3.Implement your complete street policy into a design practice for your downtown adjacent neighborhood context 4.Develop public realm standards for neighborhood streets including: a.Sidewalk widths b.On-street parking requirements c.Required street trees d.Pedestrian-scaled lighting e.Options for off-site stormwater management including fee in lieu Stage 1 1.Maintain existing streets and alleys. Stage 2 1.Upon street improvements, reduce lane widths to reflect a target speed of 20 MPH or less. 2.Permit yield streets 3.Implement your complete street policy into a design practice for your downtown adjacent neighborhood context 4.Develop public realm standards for neighborhood streets including: a.Sidewalk widths b.On-street parking requirements c.Required street trees d.Pedestrian-scaled lighting e.Options for off-site stormwater management including fee in lieu NOTE: This is a working document subject to change. Please contact Kristen Dunphey (kdunphey@cnu.org) at the Congress for the New Urbanism for the most up to date version. 140 of 188 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20 Journal of the American Planning Association ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20 Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development: Insights From Cities in Southern California Ajay Garde & Cecilia Kim To cite this article: Ajay Garde & Cecilia Kim (2017) Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development: Insights From Cities in Southern California, Journal of the American Planning Association, 83:4, 346-364, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2017.1364974 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1364974 View supplementary material Published online: 12 Oct 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 653 View related articles View Crossmark data 141 of 188 346 Problem, research strategy, and fi nd- ings : Advocates of form-based codes contend that these zoning regulations go beyond conventional zoning regulations in promot- ing sustainable development. We examine the extent to which form-based codes adopted by California cities differ from conventional zoning regulations in integrating 41 Leader- ship in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development sustainability criteria (measured by the total number of criteria and the strength of each criterion included in regulations) using a multiple-case study of 26 cities in Southern California. We examine whether and how form-based codes adopted for specifi c development areas differ from the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and from the current conventional zoning regulations of matched cities. We fi nd considerable variation among cities: Not all form-based codes in our study include more sustainability criteria to a stronger degree than conventional zoning regulations, but a) most form-based codes include more sustainability criteria than the conventional zoning regula- tions they replaced and those of matched cities, and b) the strongest form-based codes include more sustainability criteria to a stronger degree than the conventional zon- ing regulations they replaced and those of matched cities. We lack suffi cient information to generalize; California, moreover, has many state laws requiring sustainable development. Our fi ndings provide valuable insight for cit- ies considering zoning reform to increase the sustainability of development. Takeaway for practice : Our fi ndings suggest that form-based and conventional zoning regulations can each help cities integrate sustainability criteria into their Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development Insights From Cities in Southern California Ajay Garde and Cecilia Kim development regulations. Our research offers positive examples of best practice in zoning reform and highlights missed opportunities for creating more sustainable communities. Cities considering zoning reform can consider these opportunities when reforming their codes to be more supportive of sustainable development. Keywords: form-based codes , sustainable development , zoning reform About the authors: Ajay Garde ( agarde@uci. edu ) is an associate professor, and Cecilia Kim ( cecilia.kim@uci.edu ) is a doctoral candidate, in the Department of Urban Planning and Public Policy at the University of California, Irvine. Color versions of one or more of the fi gures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/rjpa . Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 83, No. 4, Autumn 2017 DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2017.1364974 © 2017 American Planning Association, Chicago, IL. Z oning reform is under way in several cities across the United States; many cities are adopting form-based codes or new conventional zoning regula- tions as part of this effort. 1 Form-based codes are zoning regulations that emphasize physical form, instead of land use, as the organizing principle that regulates development to ensure predictable built-form outcomes. Form-based codes are typically adopted to remove regulatory barriers inherent in convention- al zoning regulations and allow, by right, compact and mixed-use developments that integrate mixed-income housing and support alternative modes of transpor- tation. Advocates of form-based codes assert that these regulations go beyond conventional zoning regulations in advancing the sustainability of development. No one, however, has examined the differences between form-based codes and current conventional zoning regulations in integrating sustainability criteria to determine whether improvements in conventional zoning regulations can address the same criteria as form-based codes do. We examine the extent to which form-based codes differ from conventional zoning regulations in integrating 41 sustainability criteria (measured by the total number of criteria and the strength of each criterion included in regulations). We assess whether form-based codes more strongly include sustainability criteria than the codes they replaced. We also evaluate matched-pair cities to examine whether form-based codes differ from current conventional zoning regulations that may have been designed to address the same sustainability objectives. We focus on 26 cities in Southern California, evaluating whether and how the form- based codes adopted by 13 cities for specifi c development areas differ from the 142 of 188 347Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform conventional zoning regulations that they replaced and from current conventional zoning regulations in the other 13 cities. We measure whether each code integrates any of 41 sustainability criteria based on LEED-ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development) standards. We fi nd considerable variation in the extent to which form-based and conventional zoning regulations integrate LEED-ND sustainability criteria. We also fi nd that not all form-based codes include more sustainability criteria to a stronger degree than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced or those of matched cities, but that most form-based codes do include more sustainability criteria than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and those of matched cities. The strongest form-based codes include more sustainability criteria to a stronger degree than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and those of matched cities. Most form-based codes integrate walkable streets, street network, and mixed-income diverse communities criteria to a stronger degree than the conven- tional zoning regulations they replaced and those of matched cities. Most current conventional zoning regula- tions, however, integrate compact development to a stron- ger extent than the form-based codes. Some sustainability criteria, such as solar orientation, are rarely included in most zoning regulations. Cities considering zoning reform can use the strongest examples in our study as best practices in attempts to make either their conventional zoning regulations or new form- based codes more supportive of sustainable development. Our research illustrates how some cities have missed im- portant opportunities to support a variety of sustainability initiatives and suggests important ways in which cities can improve or adopt better versions of either code to develop more sustainable communities. We discuss below the main differences between form- based and conventional zoning regulations, the context in which form-based codes are being adopted, and the rel- evant literature on which we build. We then describe our analytical approach and discuss why and how we use the LEED-ND standards to examine the differences between form-based and conventional zoning regulations in inte- grating sustainability criteria. Finally, we present our fi nd- ings and recommendations. How Form-Based Codes Differ From Conventional Zoning Codes Municipalities in the United States have historically used conventional zoning regulations to minimize the adverse impact of development by focusing on the separa- tion of land uses and by specifying standards such as den- sity, fl oor–area ratios, and setbacks. Researchers have argued that conventional zoning regulations tend to restrict compact developments that include affordable housing and support alternative modes of transportation; segregate communities by race and income; restrain innovative design; and limit the achievement of important objectives, such as creating healthy communities and promoting sustainable development (Baer, 2011 ; Ben-Joseph, 2005 ; Ewing, Bartholomew, Winkelman, Walters, & Chen, 2007 ; Frumkin, 2004 ; Hirt, 2014 ; Pendall, 2000 ; Talen, 2013 ). U.S. cities in recent years have adopted form-based codes to reform zoning. Form-based codes are regula- tions that put more emphasis on physical form and less on land use restrictions than do conventional zoning regulations to achieve specifi c built-form outcomes in development (Form-Based Code Institute [FBCI], n.d. ; D. G. Parolek, Parolek, & Crawford, 2008 ; Talen, 2013 ). The FBCI ( n.d. ), an advocacy group, defi nes a form- based code as a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of land uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation. (p. 1) Most form-based codes include a regulating plan that identifi es the form, scale, permitted land uses, and overall character sought in new development and inte- grates fi gures and visuals to clearly illustrate the rules and intended built-form objectives (FBCI, n.d. ). Madden and Russell ( n.d. , p. 1) state, “Form-based codes differ considerably from conventional zoning codes, but they are still zoning” and are “a way to regulate development that controls building form fi rst and building use second, with the purpose of achieving a particular type of ‘place’ or built environment based on a community’s vision.” K. Parolek ( 2017 , p. 42) emphasizes that form- based codes “are carefully written to refl ect the context; the regulations for a downtown main street will be different than those for a smaller neighborhood main street.” It is diffi cult to clearly differentiate form-based codes from conventional zoning regulations because the latter also regulate the physical form of development to some 143 of 188 348 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 extent by specifying standards, such as building setbacks, building height, density, and fl oor–area ratio. The FBCI ( n.d. , p. 2) emphasizes that conventional zoning regula- tions regulate development through “abstract and uncoor- dinated restrictions to the neglect of an integrated built- form,” whereas form-based codes regulate development to achieve specifi c built-form outcomes and address “the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks” in regula- tions. Form-based codes typically achieve these goals by specifying building frontage standards, building form standards, building placement standards, build-to lines, and street design standards that emphasize interconnected street networks and pedestrian-scale blocks. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate how the form-based code adopted by Ventura (CA) regulates development by means of a regulating plan that identifi es different zones along a continuum from urban general to urban core. The Ventura code also sets forth development standards for building placement, building profi le and frontage, building types, parking standards, and permitted land uses to achieve specifi c built-form objectives. As of March 2016, more than 300 form-based codes had been adopted in the United States that met the broad defi nition and general criteria established by the FBCI; an additional 200 codes were being developed at that time (Borys & Talen, 2016 ). Form-based codes can be adopted to replace existing conventional zoning regulations for the entire city or for a part of the city. Most form-based codes are adopted for the redevelopment of specifi c areas that are designated as mixed-use, higher density developments in the city core. Conventional zoning regulations in such cases are still used to regulate other areas of the city. A few cities, including Azusa (CA), Cincinnati (OH), Denver (CO), and Miami (FL), have adopted citywide form-based codes. Cities are adopting form-based codes, amid calls for zoning reform, to allow, by right, mixed-use and higher density developments that include mixed-income housing as well as support alternative modes of transportation and to achieve physical planning objectives that are diffi cult to achieve under conventional zoning regulations (Borys & Talen, 2016 ; Congress for the New Urbanism, 2004 ; FBCI, n.d. ; Kulnik, Wolf, & Leroux, 2013 ; Madden & Russell, n.d. ; D. G. Parolek et al., 2008 ; K. Parolek, Figure 1. Regulating plan from the City of Ventura’s (CA) Downtown Specifi c Plan (form-based code). Source: City of Ventura, 2007 , p. III-9. Used with permission. 144 of 188 349Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform 2017 ). It is noteworthy that a recent report by the White House ( 2016 ) emphasizes the need for zoning reform, especially in high-growth metropolitan regions, to solve the housing affordability crisis. Not all cities that are considering zoning reform are adopting form-based codes, however. Many cities are adopting new conven- tional zoning regulations to replace existing zoning regu- lations that are applicable to specifi c areas of cities. Other Figure 2. Regulations from the City of Ventura’s (CA) Downtown Specifi c Plan (form-based code). Source: City of Ventura, 2007 , pp. III-18 and III-19. Used with permission. 145 of 188 350 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 cities, including Los Angeles (CA), are adopting new citywide conventional zoning regulations to replace the existing zoning code. Baltimore (MD) and Philadelphia (PA) have already adopted new citywide conventional zoning codes. State law sometimes supports the adoption of form- based codes. In 2004, California passed Assembly Bill 1268, which authorized local governments to adopt form- based codes. California’s statewide efforts to address climate change, which led to the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (Senate Bill [SB ] 375), also contributed to the adoption of form-based codes. SB 375 requires the state’s metropolitan planning organizations to guide local policies to achieve sustainable development in their regions through an integrated ap- proach to land use planning, housing, and transit. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), a metropolitan planning organization, has recommended that local governments in Southern California encourage walkable and compact developments near transit that include different housing types to comply with the require- ments of SB 375 (SCAG, 2016 ). Some cities in Southern California have adopted form-based codes to comply with the requirements of SB 375 and to implement SCAG’s recommendations. Most of these form-based codes are adopted for specifi c redevelopment areas of the city; of all 189 cities in Southern California, only Azusa has adopted a citywide form-based code. Other California cities have amended existing zoning codes or have adopted new conventional zoning regulations to comply with the re- quirements of SB 375 and to implement SCAG’s recommendations. Some researchers and advocates of form-based codes contend that these regulations mitigate the problems associated with sprawl by permitting compact and mixed-use development, address the needs of a diverse population, contribute to social and spatial integration by permitting mixed-income housing that includes affordable housing, support public health by making neighborhoods more walkable, and enhance the quality of the public realm by emphasizing streetscape and frontage standards (FBCI, n.d. , 2017 ; D. G. Parolek et al., 2008 ; K. Parolek, 2017 ; Steuteville, 2015 ; Talen, 2013 ). The FBCI ( n.d. ) asserts that these regulations go beyond conventional zoning regulations in advancing the sustainability of development. There is ongoing debate between the advocates of form-based codes and others over the presumed benefi ts of form-based codes; with the exception of a few studies, however, not much empirical analysis substantiates the benefi ts of form-based codes (California Planning and Development Report, 2010 ; Duany & Talen, 2002 ; Hansen, 2014 ; Hirt, 2014 ; Purdy, 2006 ; Talen, 2013 ). Sustainable development is generally defi ned in the planning literature as balancing the environment, equity, and the economy (Berke & Conroy, 2000 ; Jepson & Haines, 2014 ). Several studies have evaluated local plans using different approaches because creating sustainable communities is an important planning objective, and local plans are tools that municipalities use to set long- term goals and policies (Lyles & Stevens, 2014 ). Most plan evaluation scholarship assesses the effectiveness of decision making during the plan-making process, a plan’s quality after it is published but before it is adopted, and the plan’s outcomes after it is adopted (Bassett & Shan- das, 2010 ; Berke & Conroy, 2000 ; Berke & Godschalk, 2009 ; Kim & Li, 2016 ; Ryan, 2011 ). Some researchers have used content analysis methods to evaluate networks of plans to determine their vulnerability to hazards and climate change (Berke et al., 2015 ) and to determine the extent to which sustainable stormwater management principles are integrated into local comprehensive plans (Kim & Li, 2016 ). Most local plans are advisory, however, and not regulatory in practice (see Baer, 1997 ). Zoning regulations, in contrast, are enforceable laws that local governments use to implement the vision and policies included in local plans. Planners can more effectively use zoning regulations to promote sustainable development; this allows researchers to evaluate the integration of sustainable development objectives into planning practice and examine the impact of conventional zoning regulations on urban form, with a focus on specifi c issues related to sustainability. Lens and Monkkonen ( 2016 ) fi nd that land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income. Pendall ( 2000 ) shows that land use regulations contribute to racial segregation. Talen ( 2013 ) concludes that conventional zoning regulations produce sprawl. Smith and Giraud ( 2006 ) assert that zoning changes contribute to loss of agricul- tural land. Some researchers have used content analysis to evaluate the extent to which conventional zoning regulations have integrated sustainability-related criteria. Hirt (2013 ) ana- lyzes the contents of zoning ordinances of 25 large U.S. cities and concludes that current zoning practices do not adequately allow mixing of residential and commercial land uses. Jepson and Haines ( 2014 , p. 239) assert that “zoning ordinances that directly address sustainability criteria in many dimensions” are more likely to achieve sustainability objectives. They fi nd that older zoning ordinances include fewer sustainability principles. 146 of 188 351Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform Several cities have recently adopted form-based codes to reform zoning. Advocates of form-based codes contend that these regulations go beyond conventional zoning regula- tions in promoting sustainable development; however, no one has examined the extent to which form-based codes differ from current conventional zoning regulations in promoting sustainable development. We examine the extent to which form-based codes differ from conventional zoning regulations in integrating 41 sustainability criteria included in the LEED-ND rating system; we accept the principle that zoning regulations that integrate multiple sustainability criteria to a stronger extent are more likely to actually achieve sustainability objectives. We evaluate only the extent to which form-based and conventional zoning regulations integrate sustainability criteria; we do not examine the impact of the regulations after they are implemented. Sustainable development objectives can be achieved through means other than zoning, which we do not consider. A signifi cant proportion of the form-based codes that have been adopted in the United States are in California, with most clustered in Southern California (Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research, 2010 ). In California, specifi c plans are typically adopted to implement the local general plan for a portion of the city. 2 Most form-based codes are thus adopted as specifi c plans for the redevelop- ment of targeted areas designated as mixed-use, higher density developments in the heart of cities. Specifi c plans are adopted as zoning codes and carry the weight of local law in some jurisdictions in California (Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research, 2005 ). We focus on 26 cities in Southern California, which include all 13 cities that have adopted form-based codes (we call these target cities ). We matched the other 13 cities (we call these sister cities ) to one of the target cities. We identifi ed sister cities based on their income and popula- tion characteristics, as discussed below. We used content analysis of form-based and conventional zoning regula- tions to examine the degree to which each of the 41 LEED-ND sustainability criteria are integrated into these regulations and evaluate the extent to which a) the form- based codes adopted by the target cities integrate sustain- ability criteria, b) the form-based codes of the target cities differ from conventional zoning regulations previously applicable to the same area in integrating sustainability criteria, c) the form-based codes of the target cities differ from the current conventional zoning regulations of the sister cities in integrating sustainability criteria, and d) there are statistically signifi cant differences between the form-based codes and conventional zoning regulations of target cities and sister cities in integrating sustainability criteria. 3 Examining the Differences Between Form-Based and Conventional Zoning Regulations in Integrating Sustainability Criteria We use a multiple-case study method, as discussed by Yin (2014) and (Patton, 2002), to determine the extent to which form-based and conventional zoning regulations integrate the 41 sustainability criteria included in the LEED-ND rating system. We contacted senior city plan- ners in each of the 189 Southern California cities and asked whether the city had adopted a form-based code. We also searched each city’s website to identify the form-based codes adopted by the city and reviewed a published list of cities that have adopted form-based codes (Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research, 2010 ). We next consid- ered only those regulations that cities identifi ed as form- based codes in their plan documents. We identifi ed 13 cities that had adopted form-based codes as specifi c plans or as regulations in municipal codes for the redevelopment of specifi c areas of cities. These form-based codes were adopted as zoning regulations to implement the local general plan for a portion of the city. We retrieved all 13 form-based codes available online or on request from cities. We used the boundaries of the study area identifi ed in the form-based codes to identify and retrieve the conven- tional zoning regulations applicable to the same area in the target cities. 4 We next identifi ed similar commercial/ mixed-use areas in the heart of each sister city and retrieved the current conventional zoning regulations pertinent to these areas from each city’s website. We identifi ed sister cities based on income and population size but also consid- ered the recency of regulations, the type of regulations, and the location of cities within the region to fi nd the closest match for comparative analyses (see Garde, 2012 ). Most of the form-based codes were recently adopted as specifi c plans, so we tried to identify sister cities that had recently adopted conventional zoning regulations as specifi c plans. We also tried to identify sister cities within the same county for coastal counties for comparative analyses. 5 Table 1 shows the incomes and population characteristics of target cities and sister cities. Figure 3 shows the locations of the target cities and the sister cities selected for the study. Table 2 shows the matched pairs of cities and the versions of the form-based and conventional zoning regula- tions we analyze in this study. We base our analyses on the current versions of form-based codes that were adopted as specifi c plans for the redevelopment of key commercial/ mixed-use areas in the heart of target cities, the 147 of 188 352 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 conventional zoning regulations previously applicable to the same areas of target cities, and the current conventional zoning regulations that were applicable to similar areas of sister cities. We use LEED-ND criteria to assess the sustainability content of form-based and conventional zoning codes. 6 The LEED-ND rating system consists of a total of 41 operationally defi ned and measurable criteria in three categories: 1) Smart Location and Linkage, 2) Neighbor- hood Pattern and Design, and 3) Green Infrastructure and Buildings. The Smart Location and Linkage category includes criteria such as housing and jobs proximity, loca- tions with reduced automobile dependence, and restora- tion of habitat or wetlands and water bodies. The Neigh- borhood Pattern and Design category includes criteria such as compact development, mixed-income diverse communities, and walkable streets. The Green Infrastruc- ture and Buildings category includes criteria such as certi- fi ed green buildings, heat island reduction, and stormwater management. Most LEED-ND criteria include subcriteria. The mixed-income diverse communities criterion, for instance, includes three subcriteria: affordable housing, diverse housing types, and mixed-income housing. We present all 41 LEED-ND criteria in the tables that include the results of our analysis. We use the LEED-ND criteria for a number of reasons. First, the LEED-ND criteria were developed using a consen- sus-based process that involved review and input from more than 100 different professionals and academics; the criteria are widely used to evaluate and certify the sustainability of neigh- borhood development projects in the United States (Garde, 2009 ; U.S. Green Building Council [USGBC], 2013 ). We Table 1. Population characteristics of cities selected for the study. City (county)Population, 2010 Population density (persons per square mile), 2010 Median household income, 2009–2013 Lancaster, CA (Los Angeles)156,633 1,661.4 $50,193 Palmdale, CA (Los Angeles)152,750 1,441.6 $53,922 Santa Clarita, CA (Los Angeles)176,320 3,344.7 $82,607 Pasadena, CA (Los Angeles)137,122 5,969.6 $69,302 South Gate, CA (Los Angeles)94,396 13,045.3 $42,776 West Hollywood, CA (Los Angeles)34,399 18,229.5 $52,649 Whittier, CA (Los Angeles)85,331 5,825.0 $68,522 Upland, CA (San Bernardino)73,732 4,721.3 $62,667 Fullerton, CA (Orange)135,161 6,046.7 $67,384 Orange, CA (Orange)136,416 5,501.3 $78,838 Huntington Beach, CA (Orange)189,992 7,103.0 $81,389 Rancho Cucamonga, CA (San Bernardino)165,269 4,147.2 $77,835 San Juan Capistrano, CA (Orange)34,593 2,450.8 $75,600 Monrovia, CA (Los Angeles)36,590 2,689.5 $71,768 Santa Ana, CA (Orange)324,528 11,900.6 $53,335 Riverside, CA (Riverside)303,871 3,745.0 $55,636 Perris, CA (Riverside)68,386 2,178.4 $48,311 Glendora, CA (Los Angeles)50,073 2,582.0 $74,615 Temecula, CA (Riverside)100,097 3,319.9 $78,356 Burbank, CA (Los Angeles)103,340 5,959.3 $66,240 Montclair, CA (San Bernardino)36,664 6,645.6 $50,220 La Puente, CA (Los Angeles)39,816 11,444.7 $53,794 Oxnard, CA (Ventura)197,899 7,358.5 $60,784 Glendale, CA (Los Angeles)191,719 6,295.6 $53,020 Ventura, CA (Ventura)106,433 4,914.9 $65,137 Costa Mesa, CA (Orange)109,960 7,024.4 $65,830 Note: The table presents cities as matched pairs, with the target city presented fi rst and the sister city presented second. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, n.d . 148 of 188 353Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform rely on their expertise in developing and defi ning these crite- ria. Second, these criteria are similar to those included in the American Planning Association’s ( 2000 ) Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. Third, these criteria are similar to those included in other important rating systems (e.g., the United Kingdom’s Building Research Establishment Environ- mental Method [for] Communities and the German Sustain- able Building Council – New City Districts [Deutsche Gesell- schaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen – Neubau Stadtquartiere]) that are used to evaluate and certify the sustainability of neighbor- hood development projects in other countries. Finally, a number of scholars consider LEED-ND criteria important in promoting sustainable urban design (Daniels, 2014 ; Jabareen, 2006 ; Jepson & Haines, 2014 ); we previously used LEED- ND criteria to evaluate the sustainability content of form- based and conventional zoning regulations (Garde, Kim, & Tsai, 2015 ). The research team for this study included four doctoral students and one faculty member; the team analyzed the contents of form-based and conventional zoning regula- tions with the operationally defi ned criteria presented in the rating system to determine the extent to which each of the LEED-ND criteria was integrated into the regulations. First we coded the contents of these regulations on a 5-point scale (0–4) to examine the extent to which they included LEED-ND criteria and the strength of their support for those objectives. We provide two examples to explain the analytical coding approach. The form-based code of the City of Montclair ( 2006 , p. 5-38) requires that “surface parking areas shall be planted with shade trees at a minimum ratio of one tree for every four spaces in an orchard planting arrangement.” The regulation is a mandatory requirement, as indicated by the word shall , and addresses the LEED- ND criterion heat island reduction to “provide shade from tree canopy for 50% of the non-roof site hardscape (in- cluding roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking lots, parking structures, and driveways)” (USGBC, 2013 , p. 99). Thus, this regulation received a score of 4 in our coding. The form-based code of the City of Fullerton ( 2010 , p. 4-89) indicates that “Mixed-Use B is a three to six story building that primarily contains residential apartments and/or condominiums. Live-work units, commercial uses, public parking, and public transit uses may also be pro- vided within the building.” The zoning code addresses the intent of the LEED-ND criterion regarding housing and jobs proximity to “encourage balanced communities with a diversity of uses and employment opportunities” (USGBC, 2013 , p. 34). It is nonmandatory permission, however, indicated by the word may , and does not address the Figure 3. Cities selected for the study. 149 of 188 354 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 Table 2. Matched pairs of cities and regulations analyzed in the study. City (county)Form-based code (version)Conventional zoning regulation (version) Perris, CA (Riverside)Perris Downtown Specifi c Plan (City of Perris, 2012 ) Perris Downtown Specifi c Plan (1993) Glendora, CA (Los Angeles)Municipal Code Chapter 21.06 Special Use Zones (2014) San Juan Capistrano, CA (Orange) Title 9, Land Use Code, Historic Town Center Form-Based Code (City of San Juan Capistrano, 2012 ) Relevant municipal code sections (2012) Monrovia, CA (Los Angeles)Relevant municipal code sections and development standards in Land Use Element Area PD-12 Station Square Transit Village (2015) Fullerton, CA (Orange) Fullerton Transportation Center Specifi c Plan (2010) Relevant municipal code sections (2012) Orange, CA (Orange)Orange Santa Fe Deport Specifi c Plan (2012) Huntington Beach, CA (Orange) Beach and Edinger Corridors Specifi c Plan (2010) Relevant municipal code sections (2014) Rancho Cucamonga, CA (San Bernardino) Rancho Cucamonga Town Square Master Plan Design Standards (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2002 ), Subarea 9 Development Standards Santa Ana, CA (Orange) Article 19 The Transit Zoning Code, Specifi c Development No. 84 (2010) Relevant municipal code sections (2012) Riverside, CA (Riverside)City of Riverside Downtown Specifi c Plan (2002) South Gate, CA (Los Angeles) Municipal Code Chapter 11.60 Form-Based Development Code (2010) Relevant municipal code sections and development standards (2012) West Hollywood, CA (Los Angeles) The Sunset Specifi c Plan (1996) and Ordinance No. 12-904 (2012 ) Temecula, CA (Riverside) Old Town Specifi c Plan (2010)Old Town Specifi c Plan (1994) Burbank, CA (Los Angeles)Article 27 of the Burbank Zoning Ordinance, North San Fernando Commercial Zone (2012) Oxnard, CA (Ventura)The Village Specifi c Plan (2009)Relevant code of ordinances sections (2014) Glendale, CA (Los Angeles)Glendale Downtown Specifi c Plan (2013) Lancaster, CA (Los Angeles) Downtown Specifi c Plan (2008)Relevant zoning ordinance sections (2012) Palmdale, CA (Los Angeles)Palmdale Transit Village Specifi c Plan (2007) Whittier, CA (Los Angeles) Uptown Whittier Specifi c Plan (2008)Uptown Whittier Specifi c Plan (1998) Upland, CA (San Bernardino)Historic Downtown Upland Specifi c Plan (2011) Ventura, CA (Ventura) Downtown Specifi c Plan (2007)Downtown Specifi c Plan (1993) Costa Mesa, CA (Orange)19 West Urban Plan (2006), Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (2006), and relevant code of ordinances sections (2012) Montclair, CA (San Bernardino) North Montclair Downtown Specifi c Plan (2006) North Montclair Specifi c Plan (1998) La Puente, CA (Los Angeles)La Puente Downtown Business District Specifi c Plan (2002) Santa Clarita, CA (Los Angeles) Downtown Newhall Specifi c Plan (2005) Relevant municipal code sections (2012) Pasadena, CA (Los Angeles)Central District Specifi c Plan (2004) Note: The table presents cities as matched pairs, with the target city presented fi rst and the sister city presented second. specifi c requirements of the criterion, which is determined by the residential/nonresidential composition of the build- ing’s total square footage. Thus, this statement received a score of 1 in our coding. Table 3 provides additional ex- amples of our analytical coding approach. We next calculated the weighted score ( W A ), which indicates the strength of each of the 41 LEED-ND sustainability criteria included in each form-based code and conventional zoning code. We relied primarily on the W A score of each LEED-ND criterion and used thresholds to infer the strength of these scores ( W A ≥1.5 indicates that the specifi c LEED-ND criterion is included strongly in the regulations, 0.5 < W A < 1.5 indicates that the LEED-ND criterion is included moderately in the regulations, and 150 of 188 355Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform Table 3. Examples of the analytical coding approach. Regulation example Applicable LEED- ND criterion Assigned score and rationale “Surface parking areas shall be planted with shade trees at a minimum ratio of one tree for every four spaces in an orchard planting arrangement.” (City of Montclair, 2006 , p. 5-38 ) Heat island reduction Score of 4. The regulation is a mandatory requirement, as indicated by the word shall , and addresses a specifi c requirement of the criterion to “provide shade from tree canopy for 50% of the non-roof site hardscape (including roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking lots, parking structures, and driveways)” (USGBC, 2013 , p. 99). “All lighting of the building, landscaping, parking lot, or similar facilities, shall be so shielded and directed as to refl ect away from adjoining properties.” (City of Temecula, 1994 , p. III-23) Light pollution reduction Score of 3. The regulation is a mandatory requirement, as indicated by the word shall , and promotes the intent of the criterion to “minimize light trespass from project sites ” (USGBC, 2013, p. 108). However, it does not address specifi c requirements of the criterion, such as the requirement to “install automatic controls that turn off exterior lighting when suffi cient daylight is available ” (USGBC, 2013, p. 108) and adherence to allowable light trespass standards measured in foot-candles. “Planting areas should be designed to receive and fi lter stormwater runoff from adjacent roofs and paved surfaces.” (City of Burbank, 2012 , p. 76) Stormwater management Score of 2. The regulation promotes the intent of the criterion to “reduce pollution and hydrologic instability from stormwater, reduce fl ooding, promote aquifer recharge, and improve water quality ” (USGBC, 2013, p. 97). However, it is a nonmandatory recommendation, as indicated by the word should , and does not address the specifi c requirement of the criterion, which is determined by the volume of rainfall retention. “Mixed-Use B is a three to six story building that primarily contains residential apartments and/or condominiums. Live- work units, commercial uses, public parking, and public transit uses may also be provided within the building.” (City of Fullerton, 2010 , p. 4-89 ) Housing and jobs proximity Score of 1. The regulation addresses the intent of the criterion to “encourage balanced communities with a diversity of uses and employment opportunities” (USGBC, 2013 , p. 34). However, it is a nonmandatory permission, as indicated by the word may , and does not address the specifi c requirements of the criterion, which is determined by the residential/nonresidential composition of the building’s total square footage. Score of 0. No LEED-ND criterion was addressed or has any relevance in the regulations. Note: LEED-ND = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development; USGBC = U.S. Green Building Council. W A ≤ 0.5 indicates that the LEED-ND criterion is in- cluded weakly in the regulations). The form-based code of the City of Ventura, for example, received a weighted score ( W A ) of 2.5 for the walkable streets criterion, which indi- cates that this criterion is included strongly in Ventura’s form-based code. We used this approach to determine whether, and to what extent, each of the 39 zoning regula- tions included each of the 41 sustainability criteria. We provide additional details on how we calculated W A scores in the online Technical Appendix. We then used three different approaches to assess the extent to which form-based and conventional zoning regulations of cities differ in integrating these criteria. Each approach provides different insights. We fi rst calculated the sum of W A scores for all 41 sustainability criteria for each form-based code and conventional zoning code ( W s ), which indicates the overall strength of each code in inte- grating all 41 LEED-ND sustainability criteria. The form- based code of the City of Ventura, for example, received the highest W s score (40.39) in the study, making it the strongest form-based code and the highest ranking code in our study; the City of Glendora (CA) received the lowest W s score (6.27), making it the weakest conventional zoning code and the lowest ranking zoning code in our study. We then summarized the fi ndings for form-based and conven- tional zoning regulations that ranked highest and those that ranked lowest based on the strength of the zoning regulations ( W s ) to highlight the wide range over which sustainability criteria are integrated across these regulations. We then ranked the form-based codes of target cities by the overall strength of the code (based on the W s scores) and divided these cities into three tiers: top, middle, and bottom. We call the form-based codes in the top tier the strongest codes and those in the bottom tier the weakest form-based codes. We then categorized the previous con- ventional zoning regulations of the target cities and the current conventional zoning regulations of the sister cities in the same tier as the form-based codes of the target cities. We use this approach to compare the strongest and weakest form-based codes to the conventional zoning regulations of the target cities and their sister cities. We provide 151 of 188 356 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 additional details on how we categorize these codes in the Technical Appendix. We fi nally conducted statistical analyses to examine whether the differences in integrating sustainability criteria between the form-based and conventional zoning regula- tions were statistically signifi cant and whether any specifi c sets of criteria were signifi cantly more likely to be inte- grated into form-based codes than into conventional zoning regulations. We selected a subset of eight LEED- ND criteria for the statistical analyses: 1) certifi ed green building, 2) compact development, 3) heat island effect, 4) light pollution reduction, 5) mixed-income diverse com- munities, 6) reduced parking footprint, 7) street network, and 8) walkable streets. We selected these eight criteria (and not all 41 criteria) to ensure a high degree of predic- tive ability of the models. We chose these eight criteria a priori, using a multipronged approach, to assess whether these sustainability criteria were signifi cantly more likely to be integrated into form-based codes than into conventional zoning regulations. We picked those criteria that are as- signed more weight in the LEED-ND rating system (such as compact development and walkable streets) and are more likely to be integrated into form-based codes than into conventional zoning regulations, as claimed by the advocates of form-based codes. We excluded those criteria that are mandated by California state law (such as storm- water management and water-effi cient landscaping) be- cause these criteria are likely to be implemented in all projects even if they are not addressed in zoning regula- tions. We also randomly selected criteria (such as heat island reduction and reduced parking footprint) to assess whether they were signifi cantly more likely to be integrated into form-based codes than into conventional zoning regulations. We used Student’s t test to examine whether the differ- ences between the form-based codes and the conventional zoning regulations in integrating selected sustainability criteria were statistically signifi cant. We also used discrimi- nant analyses to examine whether any of the eight selected sustainability criteria were signifi cantly more likely to be integrated into form-based codes than into conventional zoning regulations. We provide additional details on the statistical tests and present the results of the analysis in the Technical Appendix. Sustainable development objectives can be achieved through means other than zoning that we did not evaluate; we also did not examine the impact of either code on actual development patterns. Our method has limitations similar to those of any multiple-case study method that involves the evaluation of qualitative data by multiple investigators, including problems of interrater variability in analytical coding and generalizability of the fi ndings (Yin, 2014 ). To ensure consistency in coding and to increase the reliability of the results, we established and tested a coding protocol prior to conducting the analysis. In addition, members of the research team randomly checked 20% of the coded data in each of the 39 zoning codes to ensure the accuracy and consistency of analytical coding. How Different Are the Form-Based and Conventional Zoning Regulations in Integrating Sustainability Criteria? Table 4 presents the results for the highest and lowest ranking form-based and conventional zoning regulations. The table shows that Ventura’s form-based code ranks highest among all of the form-based and conventional zoning regulations examined in the study, addresses most of the 41 sustainability criteria, and integrates many of those criteria to a stronger extent than other form-based and conventional zoning regulations. Ventura’s form-based code emphasizes LEED-ND criteria for housing and jobs proximity, walkable streets, and transportation demand management. The code promotes the criterion of mixed- income diverse communities by requiring 15% of the units in new residential developments of seven or more units in the downtown area to be affordable for low- and moderate- income households. The code also emphasizes managing the demand for parking to reduce the parking footprint in the long term; in addition, it requires that a proportion of net parking revenues be used in transportation demand management programs and that incentives such as transit passes be provided to all residents and employees who work downtown. Figure 4 shows a mixed-use building approved under Ventura’s form-based code, which allowed the build- ing to be built with no onsite parking. 7 San Juan Capistrano’s (CA) form-based code ranks lowest among the target cities. It integrates very few of the 41 sustainability criteria. This city’s form-based code was developed primarily to emphasize the historic charac- ter of the town center and strongly emphasizes the crite- rion of historic resource preservation, encouraging the reuse of existing buildings. The San Juan Capistrano form-based code also strongly emphasizes that the design of buildings and streets in the town center lead to a pedestrian-oriented built environment through visually balanced facades and appealing streetscapes. San Juan Capistrano’s form-based code addresses very few other sustainability criteria. Burbank’s (CA) conventional zoning code ranks highest among the sister cities. It integrates most of the 152 of 188 357Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform Table 4. Results for highest and lowest ranking FBCs and CZRs of target cities and sister cities. LEED-ND criterion (LEED-ND weight) Highest ranking Lowest ranking FBC (Ventura, CA) CZR (Burbank, CA) 40001 FBC (San Juan Capistrano, CA) CZR (Glendora, CA) W G W Z W G W Z W G W Z W G W Z Historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse (1) 4.00 1.67 4.00 Bike network and storage (1)4.00 1.33 1.50 1.50 0.50 Solid waste management infrastructure (1)4.00 0.67 4.00 4.00 Preferred locations (10)3.62 2.23 0.77 0.77 1.20 Stormwater management (4)3.00 0.33 2.00 2.00 1.00 Water-effi cient landscaping (1)3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 Restoration of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) 3.00 Mixed-income diverse communities (7)2.86 0.29 Tree-lined and shaded streets (2)2.67 1.89 2.00 2.00 1.30 1.00 0.80 Existing building reuse (1)2.50 1.00 2.00 Certifi ed green building (5)2.50 Transportation demand management (2)2.40 0.40 0.40 Minimized site disturbance in design and construction (1) 2.33 0.33 Site design for habitat or wetland and water body conservation (1) 2.33 Walkable streets (12)2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.67 Street network (2)2.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 Access to recreation facilities (1)2.00 Reduced parking footprint (1)1.75 0.58 1.75 1.75 0.50 0.75 0.33 Access to civic and public space (1)1.50 0.33 Housing and jobs proximity (3)1.33 2.61 1.50 1.50 0.75 0.30 0.47 Heat island reduction (1)1.33 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 Steep slope protection (1)1.33 Locations with reduced auto dependence (7)1.00 0.50 0.50 Transit facilities (1)1.00 0.22 Light pollution reduction (1)0.75 0.75 0.75 0.30 Mixed-use neighborhood centers (41)0.67 1.11 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.67 Local food production (1)0.50 0.25 0.75 0.75 Neighborhood schools (1)0.50 Community outreach and involvement (2)0.40 Compact development (6)1.00 3.00 Infrastructure energy effi ciency (1)3.00 3.00 Building energy effi ciency (2)1.50 1.50 Onsite renewable energy sources (3)1.00 1.00 Visitability and universal design (1)0.50 0.50 Brownfi eld redevelopment (2) Long-term conservation management of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) Building water effi ciency (1) Solar orientation (1) District heating and cooling (2) Wastewater management (2) Recycled content in infrastructure (1) Total 60.27 20.52 32.09 32.09 15.00 3.80 1.60 10.93 Notes: Results are in rank order by W G of the highest ranking FBC. Blank cells indicate a score of 0. FBC = form-based codes; CZR = conventional zoning regulations; LEED-ND = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development; W G = weighted score for regulations that are generally applicable to all zones in the plan area; W Z = mean of weighted scores for each zone identifi ed in the plan area. a. W Z scores for Burbank are the same as W G scores because Burbank’s CZR has only one zone. 153 of 188 358 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 Figure 4. A mixed-use building (the building that is mostly white) in the downtown in Ventura (CA) approved under the city’s new form-based code, which allowed the building to be built with shared parking in the adjacent garage instead of onsite parking. Source: Photo by Ajay Garde, 2017. 41 sustainability criteria and promotes many of those criteria to a stronger extent than do the conventional zoning regulations of other sister cities. Burbank’s regula- tions emphasize housing and jobs proximity, walkable streets, a reduced parking footprint, building energy effi ciency, and water-effi cient landscaping. The city’s regulations allow a variety of commercial, mixed-use, live-work, and residential developments within the area; they permit townhomes and/or live-work units with storefront buildings and commercial buildings to facili- tate housing and jobs proximity. The Burbank regulations promote walkable streets by requiring that the primary entrance of commercial buildings be placed on a street- fronting facade, mandating that windows cover at least 50% of the ground-fl oor front facade, prohibiting park- ing on the ground fl oor along the front facade of store- front buildings, and encouraging shared driveways that offer access to multiple lots within a block to minimize curb cuts along sidewalks. To reduce the parking foot- print, the regulations offer property owners a fl exible approach to meeting their parking requirements and allow owners to reduce the total number of required parking spaces for shared uses. Glendora’s conventional zoning code ranks lowest among the sister cities, integrating very few of the 41 sustainability criteria. Glendora’s regulations emphasize the criteria of compact development, housing and jobs proximity, walkable streets, and a reduced parking foot- print. The Glendora regulations exempt all commercial development within the boundaries of the parking ex- emption district from the requirement to provide onsite parking to promote a reduced parking footprint, for example (because there is already ample public and pri- vate parking available in the area). Glendora’s conven- tional regulations, however, address very few other sus- tainability criteria. Tables 5 and 6 present the results of the analysis of form-based codes and conventional zoning regulations in target cities and the conventional zoning regulations of sister cities in top, middle, and bottom tiers. We fi nd considerable variation across cities: Not all form-based codes in our study include more sustainability criteria to a 154 of 188 359Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform Table 5. Results for FBCs and CZRs of target cities. LEED-ND criterion Top tier Middle tier Bottom tier FBC CZR FBC CZR FBC CZR W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) Walkable streets (12) 2.47 (0.20) 1.43 (1.15) 2.81 (0.89) 0.97 (0.79) 2.27 (0.25) 0.75 (1.11) Historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse (1) 1.87 (1.21) 2.05 (1.30) 0.58 (1.01) 0.70 (1.07) 0.91 (1.02) 0.16 (0.36) Stormwater management (4) 1.85 (0.33) 0.30 (0.45) 2.03 (0.94) 0.50 (0.87) 0.60 (0.65) 0.72 (0.68) Water-effi cient landscaping (1)1.83 (0.50) 0.95 (0.94) 1.33 (1.33) 1.17 (0.29) 0.77 (0.79) 1.45 (0.96) Tree-lined and shaded streets (2)1.80 (0.61) 0.51 (0.61) 1.53 (0.26) 0.82 (0.69) 1.20 (0.40) 0.38 (0.71) Preferred locations (10)1.70 (0.88) 0.69 (0.70) 0.85 (0.40) 0.49 (0.47) 0.65 (0.20) 0.27 (0.32) Compact development (6)1.58 (0.96) 0.77 (1.15) 1.17 (1.61) 0.66 (0.44) 0.71 (0.70) 0.22 (0.30) Mixed-income diverse communities (7)1.46 (0.22) 0.18 (0.24) 1.40 (0.24) 0.32 (0.28) 0.29 (0.36) 0.37 (0.26) Bike network and storage (1)1.43 (1.00) 0.60 (0.72) 0.53 (0.50) 0.83 (0.31) 0.29 (0.20) 0.75 (0.38) Solid waste management infrastructure (1)1.34 (1.23) 1.08 (0.96) 0.50 (0.87) 1.19 (1.23)1.80 (1.68) Street network (2)1.30 (0.52) 0.79 (0.87) 1.36 (0.38) 0.70 (0.57) 0.71 (0.12) 0.10 (0.22) Access to civic and public space (1)1.19 (0.37) 0.68 (0.65) 1.00 (0.50) 0.65 (0.44) 0.36 (0.23) 0.61 (1.05) Access to recreation facilities (1)1.17 (0.80) 0.33 (0.43) 0.72 (0.86) 0.50 (0.87) 0.10 (0.22) 0.49 (0.45) Existing building reuse (1)1.00 (0.62) 1.13 (0.52) 0.38 (0.65) 0.43 (0.47) 0.56 (0.40) 0.20 (0.25) Reduced parking footprint (1)0.98 (0.43) 0.56 (0.48) 0.83 (0.15) 1.01 (0.61) 0.60 (0.29) 0.66 (0.34) Housing and jobs proximity (3)0.98 (0.62) 0.36 (0.33) 0.88 (0.23) 0.43 (0.38) 0.59 (0.16) 0.34 (0.28) Heat island reduction (1)0.96 (0.17) 0.60 (0.25) 0.62 (0.26) 0.72 (0.41) 0.42 (0.55) 0.19 (0.17) Certifi ed green building (5)0.80 (0.78)0.25 (0.43) Mixed-use neighborhood centers (4)0.79 (0.26) 0.53 (0.52) 0.82 (0.58) 0.26 (0.42) 0.53 (0.23) 0.25 (0.35) Minimized site disturbance in design and construction (1) 0.78 (0.52) 0.52 (0.39) 0.38 (0.33) 0.56 (0.69) 0.08 (0.15) 0.20 (0.27) Transportation demand management (2)0.77 (0.40) 0.17 (0.14) 0.93 (0.81) 0.27 (0.24) 0.09 (0.10) 0.11 (0.22) Recycled content in infrastructure (1)0.71 (0.66) Locations with reduced auto dependence (7)0.66 (0.44) 0.15 (0.34) 0.90 (0.58) 0.58 (0.63) 0.35 (0.37) 0.17 (0.28) Transit facilities (1)0.64 (0.59) 0.46 (0.21) 0.39 (0.39) 0.09 (0.15) 0.02 (0.03) 0.24 (0.28) Building energy effi ciency (2)0.59 (0.37) 0.01 (0.03) 0.33 (0.29)0.30 (0.45) 0.17 (0.26) Onsite renewable energy sources (3)0.48 (0.57)0.67 (1.15) 0.40 (0.55) 0.40 (0.55) Building water effi ciency (1)0.48 (0.50) 0.30 (0.67)0.05 (0.11) Light pollution reduction (1)0.42 (0.11) 0.44 (0.22) 0.34 (0.08) 0.81 (0.34) 0.29 (0.17) 0.35 (0.22) Infrastructure energy effi ciency (1)0.40 (0.89) 0.20 (0.45) 0.83 (0.76) 1.50 (1.50) 0.50 (0.71) 0.13 (0.22) Restoration of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) 0.34 (0.65) 0.30 (0.67) 0.50 (0.87) Wastewater management (2)0.30 (0.67)0.10 (0.22) Site design for habitat or wetland and water body conservation (1)0.25 (0.51) 0.24 (0.52) 0.17 (0.29) 0.30 (0.52)0.32 (0.66) Solar orientation (1)0.20 (0.33) 0.13 (0.30) 0.17 (0.29)0.23 (0.34) Community outreach and involvement (2)0.18 (0.25) 0.08 (0.18) 0.33 (0.58) 0.03 (0.06) Local food production (1)0.18 (0.17) 0.07 (0.10) 0.05 (0.09) 0.22 (0.38) 0.11 (0.13) 0.03 (0.04) Steep slope protection (1)0.13 (0.30)0.17 (0.29) 0.39 (0.67)0.03 (0.07) Neighborhood schools (1)0.05 (0.11)0.05 (0.07) Visitability and universal design (1)0.25 (0.43)0.01 (0.03) Brownfi eld redevelopment (2) Long-term conservation management of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) District heating and cooling (2) Total 34.00 16.60 25.35 17.77 13.80 12.21 Note: Results are in rank order by W T of top-tier FBCs. Target cities in the top tier are Fullerton, Oxnard, Temecula, Ventura, and Whittier. Target cities in the middle tier are Huntington Beach, Montclair, and Santa Clarita. Target cities in the bottom tier are Lancaster, Perris, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, and South Gate. Blank cells indicate a score of 0. FBC = form-based codes; CZR = conventional zoning regulations; LEED- ND = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development; W T = average of weighted scores (average of W A scores) for all FBCs or CZRs in their respective tiers. 155 of 188 360 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 stronger degree than do conventional zoning regulations, but a) most form-based codes include more sustainability criteria than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and those of sister cities, b) the strongest form- based codes include most of the 41 sustainability criteria and include more criteria to a stronger degree than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and those of sister cities, c) most of the weakest form-based codes in- clude fewer criteria to a strong degree than the conven- tional zoning regulations they replaced and those of sister cities, and d) the zoning regulations differ in the kinds of criteria they include. Most form-based codes in our study more strongly integrate sustainability criteria such as walkable streets, mixed-income diverse communities, street network, and housing and jobs proximity than the conven- tional zoning regulations that they replaced and those of sister cities. All form-based codes in the top and middle tiers integrate more sustainability criteria to a stronger extent than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced. In the bottom tier, however, most conventional regula- tions integrate more sustainability criteria to a stronger extent than the form-based codes. Most form-based codes in our study show improvement over the conventional regulations they replaced in integrating some criteria such as compact development, mixed-use neighborhood cen- ters, and locations with reduced automobile dependence, and in introducing new regulations for certifi ed green building. Most form-based codes in the top and middle tiers integrate more sustainability criteria to a stronger extent than the conventional regulations of sister cities. In the bottom tier, however, most of the conventional regulations of sister cities integrate more sustainability criteria to a stronger extent than the form-based codes. Most form- based codes in our study more strongly include criteria for walkable streets and mixed-income diverse communities than do the conventional regulations of their sister cities. Most sister cities’ conventional regulations, however, more strongly include criteria for compact development than do the form-based codes. These fi ndings suggest that there is considerable varia- tion in the extent to which form-based and conventional zoning regulations integrate sustainability criteria; whether these fi ndings may be linked to other political, spatial, economic, and institutional factors deserves further study. Our results should be considered within the context of California legislation that requires water and energy effi - ciency in projects; those objectives might lead cities to adopt more relevant LEED-ND criteria in either form- based or conventional zoning regulations. Are the Differences Between Form- Based and Conventional Zoning Regulations in Integrating Sustainability Criteria Statistically Signifi cant? Student’s t tests indicate that form-based codes more strongly integrate three of the eight selected sustainability criteria—walkable streets, mixed-income diverse communi- ties, and street network—than do the old conventional zoning regulations that they replaced and that the differ- ences are statistically signifi cant. The differences between form-based codes of the target cities and current conven- tional zoning regulations of their sister cities in integrating any of the eight selected sustainability criteria are not statistically signifi cant. The discriminant analyses indicate that there is no compelling evidence that any of the eight selected criteria are particularly strong predictors for distin- guishing between form-based codes and conventional zoning regulations. The study involves a relatively small and nonrandomized sample, so these statistical results are presented for observational purposes only. Zoning Reform for Sustainable Cities Research indicates that many cities across the United States are considering zoning reform to address multiple issues and to ameliorate several problems. Cities in South- ern California are considering zoning reform for a variety of reasons—to comply with the requirements of SB 375, to address local problems, and to achieve a community vision that may be at odds with the requirements of state law— and promoting sustainable development may or may not be their primary objective. Some cities are adopting form- based codes to accommodate growth; to mandate intended built-form characteristics in development; and to permit, by right, mixed-use and higher density developments that include affordable housing. Other cities are adopting form-based codes to preserve the historic character of the town center, to make the streets more walkable, or to reduce the parking footprint. Several other cities are adopt- ing new conventional zoning regulations, however, to achieve the same objectives. Zoning reform, in short, is an important opportunity to also make cities more sustainable. We examine the extent to which form-based codes adopted for specifi c development areas in cities in South- ern California differ from the conventional zoning regula- tions that they replaced and from the latest conventional 156 of 188 361Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform Table 6. Results for FBCs of target cities and CZRs of their sister cities. LEED-ND criterion Top tier Middle tier Bottom tier FBC CZR FBC CZR FBC CZR W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) W T ( SD ) Walkable streets (12)2.47 (0.20) 2.24 (1.05) 2.81 (0.89) 2.12 (0.21) 2.27 (0.25) 1.77 (0.75) Historic resource preservation and adaptive reuse (1) 1.87 (1.21) 1.66 (0.94) 0.58 (1.01) 1.11 (0.48) 0.91 (1.02) 0.97 (1.34) Stormwater management (4)1.85 (0.33) 1.39 (0.56) 2.03 (0.94) 0.33 (0.58) 0.60 (0.65) 0.34 (0.42) Water-effi cient landscaping (1)1.83 (0.50) 1.92 (1.40) 1.33 (1.33) 1.33 (1.53) 0.77 (0.79) 0.89 (0.66) Tree-lined and shaded streets (2)1.80 (0.61) 1.37 (0.61) 1.53 (0.26) 1.18 (0.62) 1.20 (0.40) 0.77 (0.56) Preferred locations (10)1.70 (0.88) 0.75 (0.61) 0.85 (0.40) 0.60 (0.35) 0.65 (0.20) 0.55 (0.43) Compact development (6)1.58 (0.96) 1.72 (1.12) 1.17 (1.61) 2.37 (1.55) 0.71 (0.70) 1.76 (0.84) Bike network and storage (1)1.43 (1.00) 1.33 (0.42) 0.53 (0.50) 0.75 (0.75) 0.29 (0.20) 0.88 (0.89) Mixed-income diverse communities (7)1.46 (0.22) 0.60 (0.42) 1.40 (0.24) 0.84 (0.77) 0.29 (0.36) 0.52 (0.62) Solid waste management infrastructure (1)1.34 (1.23) 1.44 (1.53) 0.50 (0.87) Street network (2)1.30 (0.52) 1.18 (0.89) 1.36 (0.38) 0.80 (0.48) 0.71 (0.12) 0.61 (0.43) Access to civic and public space (1)1.19 (0.37) 0.94 (0.55) 1.00 (0.50) 1.41 (1.25) 0.36 (0.23) 0.79 (0.43) Access to recreation facilities (1)1.17 (0.80) 0.72 ().73) 0.72 (0.86) 1.55 (2.15) 0.10 (0.22) 0.30 (0.67) Existing building reuse (1)1.00 (0.62) 1.25 (0.81) 0.38 (0.65) 0.84 (0.34) 0.56 (0.40) 0.73 (1.01) Reduced parking footprint (1)0.98 (0.43) 0.98 (0.58) 0.83 (0.15) 0.81 (0.16) 0.60 (0.29) 0.64 (0.44) Housing and jobs proximity (3)0.98 (0.62) 0.84 (0.37) 0.88 (0.23) 0.70 (0.57) 0.59 (0.16) 0.47 (0.34) Heat island reduction (1)0.96 (0.17) 0.46 (0.30) 0.62 (0.26) 0.79 (0.48) 0.42 (0.55) 0.66 (0.21) Certifi ed green building (5)0.80 (0.78) 0.55 (0.57) 0.25 (0.43) Mixed-use neighborhood centers (4)0.79 (0.26) 0.79 (0.35) 0.82 (0.58) 0.64 (0.36) 0.53 (0.23) 0.65 (0.38) Minimized site disturbance in design and construction (1) 0.78 (0.52) 0.64 (0.61) 0.38 (0.33) 0.23 (0.20) 0.08 (0.15) 0.19 (0.37) Transportation demand management (2)0.77 (0.40) 0.62 (0.41) 0.93 (0.81) 0.20 (0.00) 0.09 (0.10) 0.23 (0.27) Recycled content in infrastructure (1)0.71 (0.66) Locations with reduced auto dependence (7)0.66 (0.44) 0.57 (0.42) 0.90 (0.58) 1.02 (1.00) 0.35 (0.37) 0.62 (0.40) Transit facilities (1)0.64 (0.59) 0.76 (0.64) 0.39 (0.39) 0.62 (0.60) 0.02 (0.03) 0.53 (0.57) Building energy effi ciency (2)0.59 (0.37) 0.68 (0.62) 0.33 (0.29) 0.33 (0.58) 0.30 (0.45) 0.21 (0.29) Onsite renewable energy sources (3)0.48 (0.57) 0.60 (0.55)0.40 (0.55) 0.02 (0.05) Building water effi ciency (1)0.48 (0.50) 0.27 (0.25) Light pollution reduction (1)0.42 (0.11) 0.40 (0.46) 0.34 (0.08) 0.14 (0.13) 0.29 (0.17) 0.16 (0.18) Infrastructure energy effi ciency (1)0.40 (0.89) 0.60 (1.34) 0.83 (0.76)0.50 (0.71) Restoration of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) 0.34 (0.65)0.50 (0.87) Wastewater management (2)0.30 (0.67) 0.20 (0.45)0.33 (0.58) 0.10 (0.22) 0.10 (0.22) Site design for habitat or wetland and water body conservation (1) 0.25 (0.51)0.17 (0.29) Solar orientation (1)0.20 (0.33)0.17 (0.29) Community outreach and involvement (2)0.18 (0.25) 0.02 (0.04) 0.33 (0.58) 0.07 (0.12) Local food production (1)0.18 (0.17) 0.31 (0.31) 0.05 (0.09) 0.17 (0.29) 0.11 (0.13) 0.02 (0.02) Steep slope protection (1)0.13 (0.30)0.17 (0.29) Neighborhood schools (1)0.05 (0.11)0.01 (0.02) Visitability and universal design (1)0.20 (0.27) 0.25 (0.43) Brownfi eld redevelopment (2) Long-term conservation management of habitat or wetlands and water bodies (1) District heating and cooling (2) Total 34.00 28.00 25.35 21.53 13.80 15.37 Note: Results are in rank order by W T of top-tier FBCs. Target cities in the top tier are Fullerton, Oxnard, Temecula, Ventura, and Whittier; sister cities in the top tier are Burbank, Costa Mesa, Glendale, Orange, and Upland. Target cities in the middle tier are Huntington Beach, Montclair, and Santa Clarita; sister cities in the middle tier are La Puente, Pasadena, and Rancho Cucamonga. Target cities in the bottom tier are Lancaster, Perris, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, and South Gate; sister cities in the bottom tier are Glendora, Monrovia, Palmdale, Riverside, and West Hollywood. Blank cells indicate a score of 0. FBC = form-based codes; CZR = conventional zoning regulations; LEED-ND = Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development; W T = average of weighted scores (average of W A scores) for all FBCs or CZRs in their respective tiers. 157 of 188 362 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 zoning regulations of matched-pair cities in integrating 41 sustainability criteria. Our results reveal that there is a wide range in both form-based and current conventional zoning codes across cities under the same state and re- gional planning mandates. Most form-based codes include more sustainability criteria than the conventional zoning regulations that they replaced and those of matched cities. The strongest form-based codes include more sustainabil- ity criteria to a stronger degree than the conventional zoning regulations they replaced and those of matched cities. The weakest form-based codes include very few criteria to a strong degree. A few of the sustainability criteria, such as walkable streets, compact development, and water-effi cient landscaping, are included relatively strongly in both form-based codes and conventional zoning regulations; however, several criteria, such as build- ing water effi ciency, light pollution reduction, certifi ed green buildings, and solar orientation (of buildings), are rarely included. Not all 41 sustainability criteria are rel- evant in all zones of cities, but planners should give more attention to these criteria in creating regulations to pro- mote sustainable development. Our statistical analyses, included only for observational purposes, show that form- based codes are statistically more likely to integrate three of the eight criteria on which we focused in those analyses more strongly than the conventional zoning regulations that they replaced. There is a general agreement among researchers that zoning regulations that more strongly integrate multiple sustainability criteria are more likely to achieve sustain- ability objectives than zoning regulations that integrate few sustainability criteria and only suggest rather than mandate compliance. We believe that best practices in zoning reform are those form-based and conventional zoning regulations that most strongly integrate sustainabil- ity criteria. We believe, conversely, that the form-based and conventional zoning regulations that least strongly integrate sustainability criteria are missed opportunities for zoning reform. City planners in California and those in other states who are considering zoning reform can benefi t from our fi ndings; form-based and conventional zoning regulations that integrate the largest number of LEED-ND criteria to the strongest extent represent examples of best practices. Cities can add even more LEED-ND or related sustain- ability criteria to further promote sustainable develop- ment. Municipalities that are considering zoning reform can review our fi ndings, consider the examples of best practices that we have identifi ed, and select the best code format to promote sustainable development in their jurisdiction. Acknowledgments Thanks are due to Andrea Hoff, Asiya Natekal, and Oscar Tsai for coding regulations analytically, to Tiffany Ho for tabulating the coded data, and to Megan Smith and Michael Phelan for statistical analysis of the data. Research Support This research was funded, in part, by a grant from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation, Los Angeles (CA). Supplemental Material Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website . ORCID Ajay Garde, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5558-059X Notes 1. Cities are adopting form-based codes or new conventional zoning regulations (for parts of the city or for the entire city) that replace their existing zoning regulations; we refer to this as zoning reform . 2. A specifi c plan could be a detailed policy plan or regulation that guides future physical development within a specifi cally defi ned area of the city. 3. Some of these form-based codes and conventional zoning regulations are adopted as specifi c plans to implement the local general plan for a portion of the city. We call these form-based codes or conventional zoning regulations to differentiate between them based on the type of regulations. 4. In some target cities, the form-based codes replaced the conventional zon- ing regulations included in the city’s municipal code previously applicable to the area; in these cases, to identify pertinent conventional regulations for analysis, we considered only those sections of the city’s municipal code that were previously applicable to the area covered by form-based codes. 5. We used this approach because Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties are coastal counties that developed earlier and have higher median household incomes and higher population densities compared with that of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which are located further inland and were developed later. 6 . The rating system was developed by the U.S. Green Building Council in collaboration with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Congress for the New Urbanism (U.S. Green Building Council, 2013 ). 7. Instead of onsite parking, shared parking is provided in an adjoining garage that was previously underused (New Urban News, 2010 ). References American Planning Association . ( 2000 ). Policy guide on planning for sustainability . Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/ pdf/sustainability.pdf Baer , W. C. ( 1997 ). General plan evaluation criteria: An approach to making better plans . Journal of the American Planning Association , 63 ( 3 ), 329 – 344 . doi: 10.1080/01944369708975926 Baer , W. C. ( 2011 ). Customs, norms, rules, regulations, and standards in design practice . In T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to urban design (pp. 277 – 287 ). New York , NY : Routledge . Bassett , E. , & Shandas , V. ( 2010 ). Innovation and climate action planning . Journal of the American Planning Association , 76 ( 4 ), 435 – 450 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.2010.509703 Ben-Joseph , E. ( 2005 ). The code of the city: Standards and the hidden language of place making . Cambridge , MA : MIT Press . Berke , P. , & Conroy , M. M. ( 2000 ). Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans . Journal of the 158 of 188 363Garde and Kim: Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform American Planning Association , 66 ( 1 ), 21 – 33 . doi: 10.1080/01944360008976081 Berke , P. , & Godschalk , D. ( 2009 ). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies . Journal of Planning Literature , 23 ( 3 ), 227 – 240 . doi:10.1177/0885412208327014 Berke , P. , Newman , G. , Lee , J. , Combs , T. , Kolosna , C. , & Salvesen D. ( 2015 ). Evaluation of networks of plans and vulnerability to hazards and climate change: A resilience scorecard . Journal of the American Planning Asso ciation , 81 ( 4 ), 287 – 302 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1093954 Borys , H. , & Talen , E. ( 2016 ). The codes study . Retrieved from http:// www.placemakers.com/how-we-teach/codes-study/ California Planning and Development Report . ( 2010 ). Form-based codes gain popularity but cannot cure all . Retrieved from http://www. cp-dr.com/articles/node-2770 City of Burbank . ( 2012 ). Article 27 of the Burbank zoning ordinance, North San Fernando commercial zone . Retrieved from http://www. burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17216 City of Fullerton . ( 2010 ). Fullerton transportation center specifi c plan . Retrieved from https://www.cityoffullerton.com/civicax/fi lebank/ blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22753 City of Montclair . ( 2006 ). North Montclair downtown specifi c plan . Retrieved from http://www.cityofmontclair.org/depts/redev_agency/ econdev/downtown.asp City of Perris . ( 2012 ). Perris downtown specifi c plan . Retrieved from- http://www.cityofperris.org/city-hall/specifi c-plans/DTP-EIR/2012_Per- risDowntownSpecPlanFinal.pdf City of Rancho Cucamonga . ( 2002 ). Rancho Cucamonga town square master plan design standards . Retrieved from https://www.cityofrc.us/ civicax/fi lebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14058 City of San Juan Capistrano . ( 2012 ). Historic town center form-based code . Retrieved from http://www.sanjuancapistrano.org/index. aspx?page=638 City of Temecula. (1994). Old Town specifi c plan. Retrieved from https://temeculaca.gov/351/Specifi c-Plans City of Ventura . ( 2007 ). Downtown specifi c plan . Retrieved from http:// www.cityofventura.net/downtown Congress for the New Urbanism . ( 2004 ). Codifying new urbanism: How to reform municipal land development regulations . Chicago , IL : APA Planning Advisory Service . Daniels , T. ( 2014 ). The environmental planning handbook for sustainable communities and regions . Chicago , IL : American Planning Association, Planners Press . Duany , A. , & Talen , E. ( 2002 ). Transect planning . Journal of the American Planning Association , 68 ( 3 ), 245 – 266 . doi: 10.1080/01944360208976271 Ewing , R. , Bartholomew , K. , Winkelman , S. , Walters , J. , & Chen , D. ( 2007 ). Growing cooler: The evidence on urban development and climate change . Chicago , IL : Urban Land Institute . Form-Based Code Institute . ( 2017 ). Practical idealism: FBCs as the framework for building sustainable places . Retrieved from http://form- basedcodes.org/articles/practical-idealism-fbcs-framework-building- sustainable-places/ Form-Based Code Institute . ( n.d. ). Form-based codes defi ned . Retrieved from http://formbasedcodes.org/defi nition Frumkin , H. ( 2004 ). Urban sprawl and public health: Designing, planning, and building for healthy communities . Washington , DC : Island Press . Garde , A. ( 2009 ). Sustainable by design? Insights from U.S. LEED-ND pilot projects . Journal of the American Planning Association , 75 ( 4 ), 424 – 440 . doi: 10.1080/01944360903148174 Garde , A. ( 2012 ). America’s suburban counties growing in a similar way? Insights from neighborhood-scale projects in Southern California . Journal of Architectural and Planning Research , 29 ( 2 ), 91 – 112 . Garde , A. , Kim , C. , & Tsai , O. ( 2015 ). Differences between Miami’s form-based code and traditional zoning code in integrating planning principles . Journal of the American Planning Association , 81 ( 1 ), 46 – 66 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1043137 Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research . ( 2005 ). California planning guide: An introduction to planning in California . Retrieved from https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/California_Planning_Guide_2005. pdf Governor’s Offi ce of Planning and Research . ( 2010 ). The California planners’ book of lists: 2010 . Retrieved from http://www.opr.ca.gov/index. php?a=planning/publications.html Hansen , G. ( 2014 ). Design for healthy communities: The potential of form-based codes to create walkable urban streets . Journal of Urban Design , 19 ( 2 ), 151 – 170 . doi: 10.1080/13574809.2013. 870466 Hirt, S. (2013). Form follows Function? how America zones. Planning Practice & Research, 28(2), 204–230. doi:10.1080/02697459.2012. 692982 Hirt , S. ( 2014 ). Zoned in the USA: The origins and implications of American land use regulation . Ithaca , NY : Cornell University Press . Jabareen , Y. R. ( 2006 ). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts . Journal of Planning Education and Research , 26 ( 1 ), 38 – 52 . doi: 10.1177/0739456X05285119 Jepson , E. J. , Jr. , & Haines , A. L. ( 2014 ). Zoning for sustainability: A review and analysis of the zoning ordinances of 32 cities in the United States . Journal of the American Planning Association , 80 ( 3 ), 239 – 252 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.2014.981200 Kim , H. W. , & Li , M. H. ( 2016 ). Managing stormwater for urban sustainability: An evaluation of local comprehensive plans in the Chesapeake Bay watershed region . Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 60 ( 10 ), 1702 – 1725 . doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.12 51399 Kulnik , S. , Wolf , D. , & Leroux , A. ( 2013 ). Reform zoning now: Clear ground rules need to be developed . Retrieved from https://common- wealthmagazine.org/economy/009-reform-zoning-now/ Lens , M. C. , & Monkkonen , P. ( 2016 ). Do strict land use regulations make metropolitan areas more segregated by income? Journal of the American Planning Association , 82 ( 1 ), 6 – 21 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.201 5.1111163 Lyles , W. , & Stevens , M. ( 2014 ). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations, and new directions . Journal of Planning Education and Research , 34 ( 4 ), 433 – 450 . doi:10.1177/ 0739456X14549752 Madden , M. , & Russell , J. ( n.d. ). What is a form-based code? Retrieved from http://plannersweb.com/2014/12/fbc1/ New Urban News . ( 2010 , July/August ). First building under Ventura’s downtown code . New Urban News , 15 ( 5 ), 11 . Retrieved from http:// newurbannetwork.com/fi rst-building-venturas-downtown-code/ Parolek , D. G. , Parolek , K. , & Crawford , P. C. ( 2008 ). Form-based codes: A guide for planners, urban designers, and developers . Hoboken , NJ : Wiley . Parolek , K. ( 2017 ). Getting by-right zoning right for communities in crisis: Planning . Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/planning/ Patton , M. ( 2002 ). Qualitative research and evaluation methods . Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage . 159 of 188 364 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2017, Vol. 83, No. 4 Pendall , R. ( 2000 ). Local land use regulation and the chain of exclu- sion . Journal of the American Planning Association , 66 ( 2 ), 125 – 142 . doi: 10.1080/01944360008976094 Purdy , J. ( 2006 ). Form-based codes: New approach to zoning. Retrieved from https://www.mml.org/pdf/map_article_issue28.pdf Ryan , B. D. ( 2011 ). Reading through a plan: A visual interpretation of what plans mean and how they innovate . Journal of the American Planning Association , 77 ( 4 ), 309 – 327 . doi: 10.1080/01944363.2011.616 995 Smith M. D. , & Giraud , D. ( 2006 ). Traditional land-use planning regulation and agricultural land conservation: A case study from the USA . Planning Practice & Research , 21 ( 4 ), 407 – 421 , doi: 10.1080/02697450601173348 Southern California Association of Governments . ( 2016 ). 20 16–2040 regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy . Retrieved from http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx#toc Steuteville , R. ( 2015 ). Form-based coding: Are we there yet? Retrieved from http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/robert-steute- ville/21778/form-based-coding-are-we-there-yet Talen , E. ( 2013 ). Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form- based codes . Journal of Urban Design , 18 ( 2 ), 175 – 200 . doi: 10.1080/135 74809.2013.772883 U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html U.S. Green Building Council . ( 2013 ). LEED 2009 for neighborhood development rating system . Retrieved from https://www.usgbc.org/ ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845 White House . ( 2016 ). Housing development toolkit . Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/fi les/images/ Housing_Development_Toolkit%20f.2.pdf Yin , R. K. ( 2014 ). Case study research: Design and methods . Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage . 160 of 188 For City Council meeting of May 21, 2018 Item: SP3 Proposed 2018 Capital Improvement Program For Discussion To: Wally Bobkiewicz, City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Hitesh Desai, Chief Financial Officer David Stoneback, Public Works Agency Director Lara Biggs, P.E., Bureau Chief – Capital Planning/ City Engineer Subject: Budget Presentation on 2018 Capital Improvement Program Date: May 21, 2018 Recommended Action: Staff will present City Council with the proposed 2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and seek feedback via discussion on how much to issue in General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds for 2018. Analysis: The 2018 CIP was budgeted to include approximately $74 million in funding from different sources. Included in this total, the CIP was proposed to utilize $12,202,000 in 2018 G.O. Bonds, not including improvements to the Robert Crown Community Center or Library CIP. Finance staff is recommending that the total G.O bond issue abated by property tax for CIP projects be limited to $10 million. The following is a list of projects utilizing 2018 G.O. bond funding that are currently under contract: Memorandum 161 of 188 Contracts Awarded Using 2018 G.O. Bonds (as of 5/21/18) Project 2018 GO Bond (as adopted) 2018 GO Bond (revised) Proposed Change Street Resurfacing, Water Main, Sewer 1 Sheridan Road/Chicago Avenue Construction Engineering $280,000 $280,000 2 Sheridan Road/Chicago Avenue Construction $1,600,000 $1,600,000 3 Street Resurfacing – Colfax, Bryant to Ridge $170,000 $150,000 ($20,000) 4 Street Resurfacing – Dewey, Lake to Church $210,000 $190,000 ($20,000) Other Transportation 5 Pavement Condition Survey $250,000 $210,000 ($40,000) 6 Street Improvement Program (lighting, pavement marking) $175,000 $175,000 7 Street Patching Program $600,000 $600,000 8 Traffic Calming, Bicycle and Ped Improvements $300,000 $300,000 Parks 9 Beck Park Expansion $400,000 $250,000 ($150,000) 10 James Park – Field Lighting $400,000 $25,000 ($375,000) Facilities 11 Chandler – Electrical Upgrades $334,000 $140,000 ($194,000) 12 Facilities Contingency $450,000 $275,000 ($175,000) 13 Fleetwood – HVAC/Electrical $700,000 $585,000 ($115,000) 14 Service Center – Parking Deck Membrane and Joint Repair $500,000 $530,000 $30,000 Miscellaneous 15 Engineering Transfer to General Fund $500,000 $500,000 TOTAL $6,869,000 $5,810,000 ($1,059,000) Staff is recommending that contracts already awarded should not have their funding further reduced. Some savings have already been realized as some bids have been lower than expected or the project scope has been reduced. However, in order to meet the G.O. bond target of $10 million, some projects that are not yet under contract would need to be deferred. The following is a list of projects proposed to utilize 2018 G.O bonds that are not yet under contract, although many have had significant staff time spent, have had public meetings or have been advertised for bid: 162 of 188 2018 G.O. Bond-Funded Contracts Not Yet Awarded (as of 5/21/18) Project 2018 GO Bond (as adopted) 2018 GO Bond (revised) Proposed Change Street Resurfacing, Water Main, Sewer 1 Main Street Commons– Phase III Const Engr Svcs $100,000 $100,000 2 Main Street Commons– Phase III Const (additional funding required in 2019) $900,000 $900,000 3 Howard Street Corridor – Phase II Engineering Svcs $208,000 $208,000 4 Main Street, Maple to Hinman – Phase I & II Engineering Svcs $380,000 $380,000 Other Transportation 5 Bridge Inspection $30,000 $30,000 6 Dodge Avenue Bus Stop Pilot $50,000 $50,000 7 Central Street Bridge – Phase II Engr Svcs $100,000 $130,000 $30,000 8 Survey Benchmark Update $50,000 $50,000 9 General Phase I Engineering (1) $50,000 $50,000 10 Street Rejuvenation Pilot $50,000 $50,000 11 Viaduct Painting $600,000 $600,000 12 Alley, North of Payne, East of McDaniel (2) $250,000 $250,000 13 Alley, North of Grove, East of Dodge (3) $140,000 $0 ($140,000) 14 Alley, North of Davis, East of Dodge (3) $200,000 $0 ($200,000) 15 Alley, North of Church, East of Darrow(1) $120,000 $0 ($120,000) Parks 16 Church Street Harbor – South Pier $600,000 $900,000 $300,000 17 Lovelace – Tennis Court Rehab (4) $0 $275,000 $275,000 Facilities 18 Animal Shelter Programming Study $50,000 $50,000 19 Arc Flash Program (Citywide) $150,000 $150,000 20 Civic Center – Elevator Upgrades $310,000 $460,000 $150,000 21 Ecology Center – Crawl Space Impr $50,000 $50,000 22 Energy Efficiency Improvements $50,000 $50,000 23 Fire Station 2 – Roof Replacement $220,000 $220,000 24 Service Center – Tuckpointing/ Windows Buildings B&C $450,000 $450,000 Miscellaneous 25 Public Art – Neighborhood Public Art $75,000 $75,000 TOTAL $5,183,000 $5,478,000 $295,000 Max Available GO Bonds for Projects Not Yet Awarded (to meet $10M target) $4,190,000 Additional Reductions Needed $1,288,000 Notes: (1) Funding used in fall for survey and geotechnical services on projects to be constructed in following budget year, such as street resurfacing and water main contracts (2) Ordinance 49-O-18 Alley Paving Special Assessment No. 1523 was approved by City Council on 4/23/18 authorizing staff to proceed with the construction of this project. (3) Per discussion at 5/14/18 City Council meeting, work to be paid for by Waste Transfer Station funding (4) Project not originally budgeted in FY 2018 163 of 188 For City Council Meeting of May 21, 2018 Items SP4 Robert Crown Community Center Project Update For Discussion To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Erika Storlie, Assistant City Manager Subject: Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Project Update Date: May 14, 2018 Recommended action: Staff will present City Council with an update on the Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library project. Topics covered will include project costs, bond issue, construction timeline, economic benefit plan, guaranteed maximum price proposal and turf field options. Attachments: Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract Memorandum Economic Benefit Program Memorandum w/ attachments Artificial Turf Playing Fields Material Selection Memorandum w/ attachments Memorandum 164 of 188 To: Wally Bobkiewicz, City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Erika Stolie, Assistant City Manager Lara Biggs, P.E., Bureau Chief – Capital Planning/ City Engineer Subject: Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract Proposal Date: May 21, 2018 On January 23, 2017, the City Council approved award of the architectural/engineering services for the Robert Crown Community Center to Woodhouse Tinucci Architects (WTA). Since then, WTA has worked closely with city staff and various stakeholder groups to develop the design of a new community center that best meets the needs of the Evanston community. On February 26 2018, the City Council approved the award of the construction management services for the Robert Crown Community Center (RFP 17-57) to Bulley & Andrews. Hiring a general construction manager early in the design process is not the standard procedure on most of the City’s design contracts, but it has many advantages on a project of this size. 1. It allows the City to hire the most qualified contractor through a Request for Proposal process rather than choosing a contractor that meets the minimum qualifications for the lowest price. 2. It allows the contractor to give input on the constructability of design options, allowing for a better quality project to be built at a better price. 3. The open book format allows the construction manager, architect and City staff to work more closely as a team, allowing the project scope to be more closely managed and resulting in a better outcome. As the design has been developed Bulley & Andrews has been an active participant in suggesting solutions, and the design has been adjusted to mitigate potential cost increases. 4. Because the contractor is familiar with the project, the construction can be significantly expedited. In the next two months, staff proposes to enter into a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract with Bulley & Andrews (BA) for the construction of the Robert Crown Community Center (RCCC). Memorandum 165 of 188 Because of the short duration of this project and the desire to have the new building in service as quickly as possible, not all of the construction documents will be completed at the same time. The expedited timeline for design means that some assumptions will be necessary to enter into a GMP contract with BA in the next two months. The GMP is intended to be the maximum price that the City pays for the contract unless a major change occurs in the scope of the project. It is intended to limit the City’s risk. However, since the design is still being finalized, the GMP contract will actually have two types of contingency built into the contract price. The contractor contingency will be controlled by BA, and will be used to account for changes to their price as they continue to receive bids from their subcontractors throughout the project. The owner contingency will be controlled by the City, and it will be used to account for design decisions that are made by the City as the project is completed. Throughout the project, both of the contingency accounts will be closely tracked. Any funding left in either contingency account at the end of the project will automatically be returned to the City of Evanston. 166 of 188 To: Wally Bobkiewicz, City Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Erika Stolie, Assistant City Manager Lara Biggs, P.E., Bureau Chief – Capital Planning/ City Engineer Subject: Robert Crown Community Center, Ice Complex and Library Economic Benefit Program Date: May 21, 2018 On 02/26/18, the City Council approved the award of the construction management services for the Robert Crown Community Center (RFP 17-57) to Bulley & Andrews. As part of their initial project proposal, Bulley & Andrews submitted a strong Economic Benefit Program, which was their plan to comply with City of Evanston goals and requirements for M/W/EBE participation and Local Employment Program. Since their selection, Bulley & Andrews has worked with City staff to refine the plan, which includes outreach events for the public. On 4/18/18, a draft of the plan was presented at the M/W/EBE committee meeting, and members of the committee gave feedback. On 5/1/18, the first community outreach event was held, a vendor fair designed to make connections between Bulley & Andrews and the local business community. A meeting designed to connect to individual members of the Evanston workforce will be held this summer. The latest version of the Economic Benefit Program is attached. Bulley & Andrews also developed a flyer (attached) with instructions for how businesses can connect with them through their website. Attachments: Economic Benefit Program Bulley & Andrews Flyer Memorandum 167 of 188 ©2018 Bulley & Andrews, LLC www.bulley.com BULLEY &ANDREWS Building Matters City of Evanston Economic Benefit Program: Minimum Requirements: Local Employment Program (LEP) 1. 15%+ of all hours worked onsite to be performed by local Evanston residents 2. Hire 1+ local resident Company Participation 1. 25% of project direct work will be awarded and performed by M/W/EBE business enterprises 2. 3% of project direct work will be awarded and performed by EBE business enterprises Project Achievement Plan: Our goal is to also identify local businesses through aggressive outreach efforts, by working with local community leaders to establish a transparent and honest dialogue early during the preconstruction phase. This approach will strongly encourage these businesses to grow by providing an environment where they can build capacity and obtain additional training and resources that are transferable on future opportunities. 1. LEP Trade workers: with the help of the unions, identify potential pool of possible union trades personnel that reside within Evanston’s two zip codes as well as within a 15-mile radius of the project site. 2. LEP Local hires: leverage an up-to-date version of the City’s employment database as well as list of individuals from item 1 to identify potential local hires and include in bid documents. 3. Participation: craft bid manual language to propose legitimate approaches to compliance with diverse firm participation: mentor protégé, sub tier contracting of distinct, measurable and meaningful scopes of work. 4. Mentor Protégé opportunities will assist residents in identifying and connecting to established businesses who can mentor the resident businesses. These businesses also may be able to assist in connecting to partners who can provide these services as well. Robert Crown Community Center Economic Benefit Program A Diverse Workforce Is A Strong Workforce 168 of 188 ©2018 Bulley & Andrews, LLC www.bulley.com BULLEY &ANDREWS Building Matters Project Compliance Requirements: 1. Craft subcontract language that specifically incorporates and echoes the City policy and procedures for compliance and impacts if not. 2. Detail QBS evaluation criteria focused on “grading” a bidder’s submission for compliance with the project goals and/or creativity in legitimate approaches to obtain compliance. 3. Monthly certified payroll and completion of program specific forms/filing. 4. LEP summary: Identified hours worked and percentage of total. Project Participation Interest & Outreach: Partners will be key in our efforts to attract, train and support all new hires to the RCCC project. Partnerships with community based organizations have been forged and will be augmented by the inclusion of community based businesses. 1. Union – integrate them into the process, focus on decorators, carpenters, laborers, electricians 2. Assist Agencies – BCU, HACIA, FWC, ILBCC, CISCO detail project opportunity/timing of bid packages/phases and list on their websites 3. Host a vendor fair designed to inform the community and local businesses of the opportunities to work on the project. The intent of the vendor fair is to allow for the exchange of ideas and information while providing businesses with a chance to engage the construction team and each other. The event will feature a formal presentation followed by the exchange of information, networking and highlighting key trade contractors interested in identifying second tier subcontractors. The event will provide a forum where interested businesses may learn of contracting opportunities. 169 of 188 Subcontractor Qualification – User Guide 1 | P a g e 1. Visit www.bulley.com First Time Visiting: 1. Go to https://www.bulley.com/ 2. Click “Subcontractors” located in the top right corner of the screen 2. Navigate to the Subcontractor Pre-Qualification Form Click “Subcontractor Pre-Qualification Form” located in the middle of the screen 170 of 188 Subcontractor Qualification – User Guide 2 | P a g e 3. Complete the Application Enter and fill out as much info as possible 1. Once complete hit “Submit” at the bottom of the screen 2. You are all set! 171 of 188 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Erika Storlie, Assistant City Manager Lawrence Hemingway, Parks, Recreation & Comm. Services Director Dave Stoneback, Public Works Agency Director Lara Biggs, Bureaus of Capital Planning / City Engineer Subject: Outdoor Artificial Turf Playing Fields Material Selection Date: May 17, 2018 Recommended Action: Staff requests direction on material to be used for fill on the outdoor turf fields at the new Robert Crown Community Center. Funding Source: 2019 GO Bonds Discussion: The new Robert Crown Community Center and Ice Rink has three outdoor artificial turf playing fields which are slated to be built in early 2020 as part of the overall project. These fields will be the first artificial turf fields owned and operated by the City of Evanston, however many other turf fields exist in the community and in area suburbs. Artificial turf fields are highly desirable for playing fields as they are can be heavily used without significant wear and tear particularly following inclement weather events. Poor drainage at Robert Crown has plagued the existing grass fields, and it is typical for fields to not be playable the day after rains. There is high demand for fields throughout the City and poor field conditions frustrate players and shorten seasons. There are many types of infield mix that can be used for the playing surface of artificial turf fields. On the low price end is a material called crumb rubber that is the lowest cost and most prevalent. Several fields in the community have been using crumb rubber for many years including the ETHS Football Field, Northwestern Baseball, Lacrosse and Field Hockey fields, and the new NU Football Indoor Practice Facility at the Lakefront. Memorandum 172 of 188 On the higher end of price is organics, EPDM, TPE, Nike Grind and Zeolite. These are all options to consider for infill mix however they will cost significantly more to purchase and to maintain over time. Quad Indoor Sports in Evanston uses EPDM. The attached document details the varying types of infill and each materials pros and cons. The most commonly cited con with the use of crumb rubber is a negative public perception of the safety of the material. There are many studies that maintain that the material is safe for use in playing fields and does not elevate a person’s health risk. However, debate continues with some members of the public believing that the material poses a health hazard and an increased likelihood of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has commissioned a study of the material and its use and the results are set to be released this summer. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/federal-research-recycled-tire-crumb-used- playing-fields The estimated Artificial Turf Infield Mix Cost Comparison for all 3 fields (227,000 total sq. feet) is as follows: Mix Type Cost Material Source Crumb Rubber / Sand $176,700 Tires Crumb Rubber / Sand / Zeolite $205,200 Tires (crumb rubber) and naturally occurring or synthetic virgin material (zeolite) Nike Grind / Sand / Zeolite $359,100 Recycled shoe soles (Nike Grind) and naturally occurring or synthetic virgin material (zeolite) (zeolite) EPDM or TPE (recycled) / Sand $399,000 Door and window seals, hoses, track and playground surfacing, toys Nike Grind / Sand $484,500 Recycled shoe soles Sand / Organic $456,000 Cork and coconut husk EPDM or TPE (virgin) / Sand $627,000 Virgin rubber The current total project cost is estimated using the crumb rubber material. If the direction is to use another product, we will update the total project cost by the amount of the increase. Attachments Infill Mix Options Statement from FIFA on potential risks from exposure to SBR’s on turf fields Chicago Park District Artificial Turf Field FAQs 173 of 188 Crumb Rubber PRO’S • Most economical infill • Most widely studied infill • Majority of studies have found no ill environmental or human health effects • Absorbs shock • Recycled material CON’S • Moves with play, requiring more maintenance to preserve field uniformity. • Negative perceptions regarding human health • Higher field temperatures COST. • $ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill PRO’S • Inexpensive • Widely used • No negative market place perception • Good ballast material CON’S • Does not asborb shock (Must utilize a shock pad) • Rarely will this infill not be combined with another material • Compacts • No real benefit aside from ballast • Can degrade fibers • Product is listed as a carcinogenic by EPA • High impact levels COST. • $ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill Silica Sand PRO’S • No tire store smell • Absorbs and slowly releases water for lasting temperature reduction • Does not require water • Inexpensive alternative infill CON’S • Sourced location highly important. • Does not absorb shock on its own, requires shock pad • Limited field installations • Lower density • Virgin Material COST. • $$ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill • New product so less is known about the long term maintenance of the product. Zeolite 174 of 188 PRO’S • Few issues with quality in the marketplace • Attenuates Shock • Very high melting point • No negative perceptions in the marketplace • Lower chemicals of concern profile than crumb rubber CON’S • Very expensive • Offers little performance advantage over crumb rubber • Virgin material COST. • $$$ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill PRO’S • Varied shapes are less likeky to compact • No perception issues in the marketplace • Attenuates shock CON’S • Very expensive • Source location very important, product sourced from China have been shown to fail. COST. • $$$ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill EPDM TPE PRO’S • Engineered for human contact and conforms to Nike’s stringent quality standards and restricted substances list • Sustainability - Diverts 160,000 pounds of materials into new uses • Some temperature reduction compared to crumb rubber • One of the more affordable alternative infills • Recycled material CON’S • Moves with play • More expensive than crumb rubber • Limited supplies available • Only small amount is used in a field • Mixed colors COST. • $$$ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill Nike Grind 175 of 188 PRO’S • Natural feel and playbility • Good energy restituation • Cooler field temperatures • No “tire store Smell” • Wide variety of products CON’S • Greater upfront investment than crumb rubber • Requires shockpad • Requires more maintenance • Must remain moderately damp to prevent caking • May require water to cool and not blow away • Limited long term information COST. • $$ MAINTENANCE • Regular grooming • Fill in low areas of infill Organic 176 of 188 HEAVY METALS IN SYNTHETIC TURF CARPET, PADS, AND INFILLS (MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS) *Information presented during Brock Educational Seminar October 29, 2015 by David Teter. PhD,PE of Teter Engineering177 of 188 Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 F: +41 (0)43 222 7878 www.FIFA.com To the members of FIFA Zurich, April 2017 MDH/awe A statement on potential cancer risks from exposure to SBR in artificial turf fields Dear Sir or Madam, During the recent FIFA Medical Committee meeting on the 13 March 2017, the issue of potential cancer risks from exposure to SBR on artificial turf fields was discussed and we are very pleased to share this information with you. FIFA first responded to media coverage of the topic in 2006 when an open letter was published following several high profile articles that stipulated that there may be a link between the crumb rubber particles known as SBR (Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in artificial turf fields and the occurrence of cancer in players exposed to these surfaces. Studies dating until 2006 from various scientific disciplines found no evidence that contact with SBR was linked with the emergence of cancer. FIFA reiterated this position ahead of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2015 in Canada that was played on artificial turf surfaces based on published studies up until that date. In light of increased public interest in the topic in 2016 and further studies carried out in the past months, FIFA would like to clarify its position on the use of artificial turf fields containing SBR infill. FIFA has taken note of ECHA/PR/17/04 in which the European Chemicals Agency has found “at most, a very low level of concern from exposure to recycled rubber granules”. Regulating authorities are conscious of the presence of potentially carcinogenic components in the compounds used for the production of tyres, the main source of SBR rubber and have labelled these products accordingly. In particular the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) is undisputed but equally there is no scientific evidence of these being bioavailable in their application as car tyres and infill for artificial turf fields thereafter. The newest findings by Van Rooj and Jongeneelen (2010) concluded that “If there is any exposure, then the uptake is very limited and within the range of uptake of PAH from environmental sources and/or diet”. A further study from New Jersey’s State Medical School indicated that health risks to children and adults from extensive contact with crumb rubber ranged from none to negligible (Pavilonis et al. 2014). Looking at specific issues such as ingestion or air pollution, a number of studies has investigated the intake of PAH from artificial turf and found less or comparable exposure than for grilled food products, smoked salmon or log burning. As a result, Dye et al concluded in 2006 that “on the basis of environmental monitoring, artificial turf football fields present no more exposure risks than the rest of the city”. While it will never be possible to exclude risk completely or prove this negative, the newer studies have confirmed the previous findings that there is no evidence of link between contracting cancer 178 of 188 2 and playing on artificial turf with SBR infill. A large number of studies have further confirmed that the effect of SBR rubber are as negligible as the effect of ingesting grilled foods or exposure to tyre wear on roads in everyday life. As with all aspects relating to player safety, FIFA will continue to monitor the developments within the scientific debate and consider any future findings. Yours faithfully, FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION Dr Michel D’Hooghe Chairman FIFA Medical Committee Member of the FIFA Council References • European Chemicals Agency (2017). Recycled rubber filling in artificial sports grounds causes at most a very low level of concern. ECHA/PR/17/04 • Nutt A (1983) Rubber work and cancer past, present and perspectives, Scand. J. Work Environ Health 1983;9 (Suppl.2);49-57 • Willoughby (1994) Rubber Fume – Ingredient/Emission Relationships, Rapra Technology Ltd Shawbury UK, 1994 • 1973-75 BRMA survey, Willoghby BG, The monitoring of the Atmospheric Environment in the UK Tyre Manufacturing Work areas, Proceedings of the International Meeting on Occupational Health in the Rubber Industry, BRMA, Stratford upon Avon, UK, May 28-30 1975 • Dye et al 2006 Norwegian Pollution Control Authority/ Norwegian Institute fro Air Research, State Programme for Pollution Monitoring • Norwegian Institute for water Research 2005 Serial No 5111-2005 19.12.2005, 1-19 • Nilsson et al (2005) Danish Ministry of the Environment - Study: Emissions and Evaluation of Health Effects of PAH’s and Aromatic amines from Tyres by NH Nilsson, Danish Technology Institute. • Moretto 2007 Environmental and Health Evaluation of the use of Elastomer Granules (Virgin and Used Tyres) as filling in Third-Generation Artificial Turf. ADEME/ALIAPUR/FIELDTURF TARKETT • Denly et al 2008 A Review of the Potential Health and Safety Risks from Synthetic Turf Fields Containing Crumb Rubber Infill. Prepared by TRC for the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, New York. NY, USA. 179 of 188 3 • Lim and Walker 2009 An Assessment of Chemical Leaching, Releases to Air and Temperature at Crumb-Rubber Infilled Synthetic Turf Fields, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health. NY, USA. • Li et al 2010 Characterization of Substances Released from Crumb Rubber Material Used in Artificial turf Fields. 2008 Chemosphere. 80(3):279-85. • Schiliro et al 2012 Artificail Turf Fields: Environment and Mutagenicity Assessment. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 64(1):1-11. • Pavilones et al (2013) Bioaccessability and Risk Exposure to Metals and SVOC’s in Artificial Turf Field Materials and Fibers. 2013 Risk Anal. • Van Rooj and Jongeneelen (2010) Hydroxypyrene in Urine of Football Players After Playing on Artificial Sports Fields with Tire Crumb Infill. Int arch Occup Environ Health 83(1):105-10. 180 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 1/8 Articial Turf Field FAQs About Us  Frequently Asked Questions Why is the Chicago Park District installing articial turf elds? Are articial turf elds safe for users? Are articial turf elds bad for the environment? Do articial turf elds impact water? I heard that articial turf elds contain lead that may be harmful. Is this true? Are there other toxic substances in articial turf that I should be concerned about? What about the heat? Does an articial turf eld get hotter in the summer in comparison to a grass eld? Can players get a bacterial infection from playing on articial turf elds? Are players who use articial turf elds more likely to get an abrasion or injure themselves? Did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issue a warning about articial turf? What did the recent risk assessment in Connecticut nd? What about the California study? Do articial turf elds contribute to the urban heat island affect? I recently saw an articial turf eld being installed by the Park District. There was a warning label on the silica product being applied to the eld that said it could cause cancer. Should I be concerned? I live next door to an articial turf eld. Should I be worried about chemicals coming from the eld and harming me? Why is the Chicago Park District installing articial turf elds? Chicago Park District athletic elds are heavily utilized and articial turf is a good sustainable solution. Articial turf elds are a good replacement for natural grass elds because they extend the playing season and lower maintenance costs. Because the elds are in high demand and heavily utilized, shutting a eld for a year to restore a natural turf eld would displace users. Industry recommended average is 50 games 181 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 2/8 (about 4 games per week) a season. The Chicago Park District may see up to 50 games a week on these athletic elds. Strategic placement of articial turf elds allows for additional resources to maintain and reseed or sod the existing elds. The benets of articial turf elds include continuous use of the elds in all weather and seasons and decreased maintenance costs. Articial turf elds provide the ability to use recycled materials such as stone underneath the eld and crumb rubber inll that would otherwise be disposed of in a land ll.    back to top Are articial turf elds safe for users? Yes, for both adults and children. Numerous peer reviewed, in-depth studies, have been completed on the articial turf surface materials, backing, yarns and inll materials used for most professionally installed articial grass solutions worldwide. Results, to date, do not conclusively prove that synthetic grass and any of the selection of inll materials (including crumbed recycled tire rubbers - SBR or ambient crumb rubber) adversely affect the players on sport eld surfaces; professional or school elds, or the environment. The most recent study was a comprehensive two-year evaluation of the health and environmental impacts associated with articial turf elds containing crumb rubber inll.    back to top Are articial turf elds bad for the environment? No. The inll material of articial turf elds may be constructed with recycled materials using up to 10 tons of ground-up used tires, rubber pebbles and/or granules.  Crumb used tire rubber has been used in elds since 1997.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) states that scrap tires are not a hazardous waste and recommends using crumb material.  This is a way to reuse old tires that would otherwise end up in a landll. Articial turf elds may use recycled stone aggregate under the elds. And the articial turf elds themselves are recyclable at the end of their life. Air quality is improved because of the reduction in maintenance hours and power equipment needed to maintain a grass eld.  Natural turf does little to combat airborne pollution 182 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 3/8 because it is so close to the ground, unlike trees which do lter air pollution. Articial turf is generally placed in larger parks, thereby not negatively impacting bird or animal habitat   back to top Do articial turf elds impact water? No. The environmental impacts of an articial turf elds are negligible.  Articial turf elds substantially reduce water usage traditionally utilized to maintain natural turf elds.  The articial turf elds have an extensive stormwater system beneath the surface that lters rainwater into the ground and storm sewer system. Additionally, articial turf elds do not adversely impact habitat in the surrounding park area.    back to top I heard that articial turf elds contain lead that may be harmful. Is this true? No.  An evaluation done by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, found that while low levels of lead were associated with articial turf elds, “young children are not at risk from [the] exposure.” Furthermore, a test result from the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services conrmed that lead chromate levels are well below the level that can cause harm to children and athletes using the surface. In fact, the results showed an average 7 year old child would have to consume 100 lbs of synthetic turf to be at risk of absorbing enough lead to equal the minimum threshold of elevated blood lead.   back to top Are there other toxic substances in articial turf that I should be concerned about? 183 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 4/8 No.  In November 2009, the U.S. EPA released a report entitled “A Scoping-Level Field Monitoring Study of Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds.” The report concluded “concentrations of Particulate Matter (PM) and metals (including lead) measured in air above the turf elds were similar to background concentrations. All PM air concentrations were well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM (150 micrograms per cubic meter). All air concentrations for lead were well below the NAAQS for lead (150 nanograms per cubic meter.) All volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were measured at extremely low concentrations which is typical of ambient air concentrations. The average extractable metal concentrations from the inll, turf blade, tire crumb inll, and tire crumb material were low. Although there are no standards for lead in recycled tire materials or synthetic turf, average concentrations were well below the U.S. EPA standard for lead in soil (400 parts per million.) back to top What about the heat? Does an articial turf eld get hotter in the summer in comparison to a grass eld? Yes. Several studies have looked at the temperature of articial turf elds on warm summer days as well as the temperature around the eld. Most studies nd elevated temperatures on the articial turf surface. The Chicago Park District recommends people stay hydrated and take breaks when engaged in exercise or other activity during the summer, particularly on hot days.    back to top Can players get a bacterial infection from playing on articial turf elds? No. In the fall of 2003, there was an outbreak of Staphylococcus Aureus (Staph) bacterial infections among St. Louis Rams players. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a study which showed that the skin infections were likely spread among players because of poor hygienic practices and not the articial turf. More recently, in September 2006, researchers at Pennsylvania State University’s 184 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 5/8 College of Agricultural Sciences conducted a study that found no trace of Staph bacteria in any of the 20 synthetic turf elds tested at various locations in Pennsylvania. These studies and other studies indicate that the articial turf is a “symptom” not a cause of bacterial infections. Infections are due to poor hygiene practices in locker rooms and by athletic staff and players. A Pennsylvania State University study in 2006 looked at this issue and concluded “players are not getting the Staph from the (articial turf) eld.”   back to top Are players who use articial turf elds more likely to get an abrasion or injure themselves? Possibly. In the past, the concern of articial turf was ankle and leg injuries. Current research on various health issues includes a recent National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) study comparing injury rates during the 2003-2004 academic years that showed the injury rate during practice was 4.4% on natural turf and 3.5% on articial turf. A National Football League (NFL)panel found that certain serious knee and ankle injuries happen more often in games played on the most popular brand of articial turf than on grass. While the report has yet to be published, news accounts indicate that the report examined the 2002 through 2008 NFL seasons, comparing games played on grass to those on FieldTurf. It found a higher rate of anterior cruciate ligament injuries on FieldTurf games. More research is needed on issues such as whether players are wearing the right types of shoes on articial turf. In October 2010, a study conducted by the state environmental ofcials for the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery found that college soccer players suffer more skin abrasions when they play on articial turf than with natural grass. It recommends working to prevent those abrasions, in part through protective clothing and equipment.    back to top Did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issue a warning about articial turf? 185 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 6/8 Yes.  In June 2008, the CDC issued a low-level public health advisory, due to the extensive publicity surrounding articial turf elds. The Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated reports of lead contamination from articial turf and, in July 2008, concluded that “young children are not at risk from exposure to lead in these elds.” Neither agency has issued additional information on this topic since the advisory or report.   back to top What did the recent risk assessment in Connecticut nd? Released in July 2010, the study found no elevated health risks from outdoor articial turf sports elds made with crushed rubber. The study was commissioned by the University of Connecticut Health Center, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, the Department of Public Health and the Department of Environmental Protection. The $245,000 study tested for 200 chemicals at four outdoor elds and one indoor eld. It says chemical levels at outdoor elds were comparable to levels commonly found in outdoor air, while levels at the indoor eld were higher but not harmful. Concerns have been raised across the country about articial turf’s safety because of industrial chemicals in crushed rubber tires.    back to top What about the California study? Released in February 2010, the study made positive conclusions about articial turf, except on heat.The University of California, Berkley released a report entitled “Review of the Impacts of Crumb Rubber in Articial Turf Applications.”  The report found that articial turf provides equal or better “playability” than natural turf and provides between 2,000 and 3,000 hours of playing time annually compared to natural turf elds which provide between 300 and 816 hours of playing time annually. The report also found articial turf elds can become hot and uncomfortable to play on in warmer months. And the report found that while articial turf contains elements that could be toxic to humans, ordinary use does not expose players to levels considered dangerous. 186 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 7/8   back to top Do articial turf elds contribute to the urban heat island affect? No. Articial turf does not contribute to the urban heat island effect (UHI). UHI is a phenomenon where the overall temperature of the city in the summertime heats up during the daytime. The structures in the city, in particular dark colored structures, retain that heat during the daytime and radiate it out at night, never allowing the city to cool off in the nighttime. While it is true that articial turf will be much warmer on a summer day than the surrounding surfaces, articial turf does not hold this heat for a signicant period of time and therefore does not contribute to UHI.   back to top I recently saw an articial turf eld being installed by the Park District. There was a warning label on the silica product being applied to the eld that said it could cause cancer. Should I be concerned? No. Silica is sand. Silica dust warning labels are attached to the bags of sand being delivered to the eld.  These types of labels are on any type of sand one buys – even if it’s play sand from a big box retailer. Respiratory health issues associated with crystalline silica dust are primarily from daily occupational exposure over many years from activities such as sand blasting or mining where the sand particles are fractured into tiny dust particles (less than 10 microns) that are invisible to the naked eye.  The inll sand that is used has been screened and washed to eliminated ne particles and achieve a uniform grain size of between 900 and 400 microns, which does not present an inhalation hazard.   back to top I live next door to an articial turf eld. Should I be worried about chemicals coming from the eld and harming me? 187 of 188 5/18/2018 Artificial Turf Field FAQs | Chicago Park District https://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/about-us/faq/artificial-turf-fields-faq 8/8 CONTACT US (312) 742-PLAY (7529) TTY: (312) 747-2001 541 N. Fairbanks Chicago IL, 60611, USA © 2018 Chicago Park District. All Rights Reserved. No. In 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Health conducted a study to assess potential public health impact from air release of chemicals and the potential impact on ground water from leaching of chemicals from crumb rubber used in articial turf elds.  The ndings conclude that the crumb rubber material used in synthetic turf elds poses no signicant environmental threat to air quality or water quality and poses no signicant health concerns.  A similar study by the California Ofce of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment also concluded that is not a serious health risk to animals and plants living in the vicinity of articial turf elds with crumb rubber inll.   back to top 188 of 188