You Need a New Map for that New Zoning Code

Last May, Clarion Director Don Elliott, FAICP, moderated an APA National Conference session on “Unleashing a New Code through Remapping.” Key participants included Raleigh Planning Director Ken Bowers, AICP; Albuquerque Senior Planner Mikaela Renz-Whitmore, AICP; Philadelphia City Planning Commission Deputy Executive Director Eleanor Sharpe, AICP; and Philadelphia Plan Implementation Manager Andrew Meloney, AICP. The point, of course, was that regardless of whether you choose to draft a use-based zoning code, form-based zoning tools, or a hybrid, those new rules and incentives will not begin to shape the future until they are implemented through a new or revised zoning map. In most cases, the new zoning code text and some form of a new map need to be adopted at the same time – and that new map can be more controversial than the code it implements. Not surprisingly, Raleigh, Albuquerque, and Philadelphia all pursued different approaches to remapping.

• Raleigh, North Carolina, developed a new citywide form-based zoning ordinance and brought forward a new zoning map reflecting the form-based zoning districts throughout the city at the same time. All went smoothly – they thought – until late in the process when controversy over the map threatened to derail the process. Planning staff regrouped, refocused attention on the fact that the controversy concerned only a small number of property owners and parcels, negotiated solutions to those discrete issues, and brought the effort to a successful adoption.
• Albuquerque, New Mexico, is now nearing adoption of a hybrid Integrated Development Ordinance (with form-based controls for downtown) and plans to use a two-phase “conversion map” approach. The first phase involves remapping each parcel into the new zone district most similar to its existing zoning in order to maintain focus on the ordinance text instead of mapping changes. In the second phase, the City will bring forward a citywide remapping with substantive changes necessary to better implement its updated Comprehensive Plan and ambitious transit and mobility goals.
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, adopted its new citywide zoning code in late 2011 and also chose a two-step zoning “conversion map” approach.  It then updated its comprehensive plan and created a Citizen’s Planning Institute to improve basic understanding of zoning tools before substantive remapping. Based on surveys and analysis, the city concluded that 31% of Philadelphia needed to be rezoned to match the new comprehensive plan. About 48% of the needed remapping has been accomplished or is in process, with the remainder yet to come.

All of the participants emphasized the need to design a process based on the politics of your community and its political and public appetite for change. In addition, early and continuing public and stakeholder involvement is essential to avoid confusion and minimize opposition. Many citizens, stakeholders, and property owners need to hear the rationale and learn about the procedures and their opportunities for involvement several times before they get comfortable with the proposed changes. Each participant also emphasized the need for a transparent approach to remapping that can be explained to the public and can defuse allegations of favoritism to particular property owners. Individualized attention to discrete properties that do not match the mapping approach will be needed in order to promote fair outcomes, but disputes over a small percentage of properties need to be handled as exceptions that do not hold up adoption of map changes that benefit the vast majority of remaining property owners.