Zoning Reform: The Code Commission Issues Interim Report
April 23, 2009
Twenty-two months after Philadelphians voted overwhelmingly to reform the zoning code, the Zoning Code Commission has issued a 126 page interim report entitled “Assessment of the Existing Code.” Readers interested in reviewing it in full will find it on the Commission’s Web site at along with a six-page Executive Summary.
For those who are interested but do not have time to read the whole document or the executive summary, I offer my own review and summary in this column, the shortest of the three documents.
The authors of the report are Clarion Associates and Duncan Associates, nationally known experts in zoning, who lead a team that includes prominent Philadelphia firms, such as Wallace, Roberts & Todd LLC, Claflen Associates, CHPlanning, LTD, and Portfolio Associates, in supporting roles.
Review and Comment on the Interim Report
The Clarion/Duncan interim report and assessment of the existing zoning code lays bare in painful detail the damage done by 50 years of neglect of city planning and development control by city officials. The report does a commendable job of identifying the many faults of the existing code.
As a document it is too large, needlessly complex, full of inconsistencies and exceptions, poorly organized, antiquated, confusing and generally incomprehensible to all but a few professional lawyers, architects and development consultants whose work requires that they understand it as best they can.
The authors also find that the defects of the document lead to continuing problems with its administration, such as incomplete applications for permits, faulty and inconsistent interpretations, jurisdictional disputes between departments, review backlogs and needless referrals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
For applicants, the permitting process has become more onerous than ever before: a lengthy, costly and unpredictable process that usually requires at least one or more hearings at the ZBA and often takes months to complete and sometimes years.
For community members who participate in the review of neighborhood development projects, Councilmanic District Workshops revealed numerous complaints with current procedures, such as perceived manipulations by insiders, lack of proper notification, inability of laymen to interpret the code, lack of design review at the community level and failure by L&I to enforce full compliance of completed projects with permit requirements.
Like an old house that suffers from decades of neglect, has rotted timbers, is infested with termites and is near collapse, the existing zoning code and its administration need major rehabilitation.
Simplifying the Code
The report identifies numerous changes that are intended to provide a “clear, fair, and efficient zoning approval process,” which is what workshop participants in the 10 district council workshops ranked as their top priority. Some examples of topics that will be addressed are the following:
“Simplify Districts – To simplify the structure of the city’s 55 zoning districts by consolidating similar districts and/or eliminating districts that are used very rarely.”
“Simplify Approvals – To reduce the number of decisions that go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.”
“Protect neighborhoods — To protect neighborhood character through increased use of citizen input into community plans, development standards, and reduced reliance on Zoning Board of Adjustment reviews.”
“Promote Quality and Design — To incorporate standards that improve quality and design.”
Reconstructing the Code
In reconstructing the code, the authors suggest, among many other things, adding new provisions that will incorporate best practices from other cities in sustainable design and in reinvestment in existing buildings. Excepting its limited requirements for managing storm water, the existing code contains nothing to require or encourage either category of improvements
In Section 7, Sustainable Design, the authors discuss various approaches to making projects more environmentally friendly. Should the code require LEED certification of new projects? Should the requirements be made mandatory or optional? Should incentives be included to encourage environmental design?
These are important questions that the ZCC will want to consider carefully. In my experience designing sustainable buildings, I have observed that clients will give serious consideration to energy conservation measures (ECM’s) provided that their installation costs can be amortized by energy cost savings over reasonable periods of time, typically 12 years or less. They viewed these items as valuable investments in future energy security and therefore they need not be mandated.
In Section 11, Rehab, Reuse and Reinvestment, the authors point out that the existing code has a built-in bias favoring new construction over renovation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings. This is probably because the last comprehensive updating of the code was done in the late 1950s, at a time when the city administration and the planning commission, under the direction of Edmund Bacon, were replacing existing buildings with new buildings.
Examples include Penn Center, Society Hill towers and townhouses, and the demolition and construction associated with Independence Mall.
Fifty years later, we have developed a new appreciation of Philadelphia’s valuable cultural legacy of historic buildings, and we have growing awareness that the reuse of existing buildings is usually the more sustainable alternative to demolishing old buildings to replace them with new.
The authors suggest that new incentives for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings be added to the code and its current obstacles be removed. I strongly endorse this suggestion and was interested to note in the Executive Summary that in the ranking of priorities in the Councilmanic Workshops that “Protecting existing neighborhoods from development impacts” and “Encouraging redevelopment of existing buildings and sites” were among the top-tier priorities of workshop participants.
Where is the Vision?
My only substantive criticism of the Interim Report is that the authors did not give updating of the Comprehensive Plan the attention it deserves. Zoning and planning are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have one without the other. Even as the revision of the zoning code proceeds to its conclusion, the Planning Commission is proceeding with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan to lay out a vision for the city for the next 25 years in narrative text, plans, renderings and models.
It will illustrate in words and graphics the vision of the future that Philadelphians set for themselves, with the assistance of their representatives in city government. The zoning code, on the other hand, is the book of rules that regulates how we get from here to there in a manner that protects owners’ investments in their properties and protects the public’s health, safety and welfare as well.
So closely are these documents linked together, it appears that completion of one depends on the completion of the other. For example, a comprehensive plan typically contains existing and proposed land use maps. The updated zoning code must have a new zoning map that contains the many zoning district changes that the ZCC and City Council ultimately adopt. Why not combine these maps into one?
How to do Design Reviews
Thus far the discussions of the ZCC have focused mostly on the day-to-day process of submitting, reviewing, approving and enforcing zoning permits. They have shied away from the subject of design reviews that address what buildings should look like, beyond the dimensional controls (height, lot coverage, setbacks, open space requirements) that the code regulates.
A previous chairman of the ZBA was known to be as interested in ruling on the aesthetic or architectural aspects of projects as he was in ruling on the dimensional aspects despite the fact that their regulation is generally excluded from the code, except for historic properties under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
The ZCC’s reluctance to wade into the debate about design review appears to be based on the perception that owners are entitled to spend their money on designs that please them, irrespective of neighbors’ opinions. Design issues, however, repeatedly come up in zoning hearings despite their absence in the code, and will continue to do so as long as neighbors feel that they have an impact on the value of their own properties.
It seems that some provisions need to be made to frame that public discussion, whether they be published as neighborhood design guidelines, citywide design guidelines, or both. While zoning reform is on the table, the time is ripe for the Chestnut Hill Community Association and its standing committees to update the Chestnut Hill Land Use Planning and Zoning Guidelines that have served as a framework for zoning discussions in the past.
I believe that an updated edition of these guidelines would serve as a useful framework for those involved in reviewing zoning applications in Chestnut Hill going forward, and, possibly, be a template for other neighborhoods as well.
Opportunities to actually make an impact on how zoning and planning decisions are made downtown come around once every two decades or so, and then only when mandated by the voters. The choice is simple enough. Either seize the opportunity now, or forfeit your license to complain when a new code is adopted by City Council.
Mark Ueland, a Chestnut Hill resident, is a senior associate at UJMN Architects + Designers.