Local codes prohibit smart growth

An audit of Illinois municipalities shows that while smart growth is a hot topic among planners, few or no towns have regulations allowing compact, mixed-use developments. Developers and designers of new urbanist neighborhoods have long known how difficult it is to get such projects approved. Now a study has quantified the difficulty on a statewide level. Out of 204 municipalities and counties in Illinois that responded to a survey, only one jurisdiction was found to have an ordinance that specifically promotes the New Urbanism. As the authors put it, “The most ‘cutting edge’ smart growth techniques are not found: traditional neighborhood development ordinances, bike lane requirements, and the use of accessory buildings as housing as strategies were virtually nonexistent.” More importantly, codes statewide include provisions that prohibit compact, mixed-use development — or make it extremely difficult. Lot sizes, setbacks, road widths, block lengths, and parking requirements all over the state were found to be incompatible with smart growth policies. “None of this is particularly surprising, but it does serve to strengthen the argument that the smart growth agenda in Illinois is more rhetoric than actuality,” say the authors, University of Illinois researchers Emily Talen and Gerrit Knaap. The study was funded through a $15,000 grant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The study was set up as a model “smart growth regulatory audit” that could be copied in other states at a minimal cost — especially if conducted through a university with student assistance. The study sought to determine whether zoning ordinances promote smart growth/New Urbanism, and to what extent the ordinances prohibit this kind of development. It also examined whether there is any consistency between rhetoric — e.g. the goal of pedestrian-oriented development — and actual provisions in the codes. Illinois not unusual While the study did not examine codes in other states, Illinois is probably representative of much of the Midwest, Talen says. Based on New Urban News’ reporting on these issues, the regulatory deck appears to be stacked against the New Urbanism nationwide, although in some states perhaps not to as great a degree as Illinois. Based on the available evidence, it seems clear that a prodigious overhaul of local laws will need to take place in order for the New Urbanism/smart growth to be implemented on a broad, nationwide scale. There were a few seemingly positive findings from the survey. For example, 56 percent of jurisdictions have mixed-use zones, 27 percent provide for open-space zoning, and 2 percent have cluster zoning. Furthermore, 61 percent of jurisdictions allow planned unit developments (PUDs), theoretically a more flexible type of zoning. Upon closer examination, the authors found that these provisions do not support smart growth very well. The mixed-use zones, for example, are a broad categories, which include allowing civic buildings like schools in residential areas. “The mention of ‘mixed use’ is relatively high, but almost no jurisdictions allow accessory buildings to be used as dwellings, nor is there any evidence that tools such as ‘traditional neighborhood development’ or mixed-use ordinances are taking effect,” the authors note. The PUDs would be helpful if there were provisions in these codes for compact development, says Talen. “They talk about pedestrian orientation, but do they back it up with smaller block sizes and lots sizes? The answer is no,” she says. The open space and cluster zoning provisions aim to protect agricultural land, but do nothing to promote the development of neighborhoods and towns. “This gives an indication that the initial approach to implementing smart growth in the state is probably by way of open land/agricultural preservation,” the authors note. “Still, the prevalence of even these approaches is relatively low.” Land consumptive provisions From a new urbanist perspective, probably the most telling finding of the survey is enumerated in the table on page 6. The authors tabulate median requirements of jurisdictions’ zoning laws, and find that they “are significantly more land consumptive,” compared to what the American Planning Association recommends in its Principles of Smart Development. “Pavement widths, which were sampled for local residential streets, are nearly double what smart growth policy would recommend. More significant in terms of land consumption are the minimum lot size requirements, which are 3 to 4 times above the ideal, and block length maximum limits, which are nearly double. Relatedly, residential setbacks are double what they could be, and commercial setbacks are well above the optimal setback of ‘0.’ Parking requirements of 1 space per 200 (for cities) and 1 space per 250 square feet of retail fall below the optimal parking requirements of 1 space per 300 square feet of retail floor area.” The study indicates that the barriers to smart growth are slightly less daunting in cities than in rapidly growing suburban areas. Cities tend to have smaller minimum lot sizes and setbacks, albeit most are well above the optimum for smart growth. “Even in Chicago, I was surprised to see a 6,000- square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone,” Talen says. Local policies likely inhibit progressive development practices by making them less financially viable, according to the authors. “Developers have often complained that the reason sprawl, single-use, car-dominated development occurs is that local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations inhibit other development form,” they note. “Even if a developer was interested in building a pedestrian-oriented, compact development, local regulations would be so costly to overcome (by requiring the granting of variances), that the regulatory framework prohibits against smart development practices.” The authors conclude: “While Illinois planners have been active in promoting the concepts of smart growth, such as through the Chicago-based Metropolitan Planning Council (Campaign for Sensible Growth, 1999), there is no particular indication that the principles of smart growth have been translated into a set of supporting regulations by local governments within the state.” They further state: “While there is currently a lot of media focus on smart growth issues, all of this attention loses significance in the face of hard evidence that little is being done to change actual development patterns at the local level.” The authors add: “Using this or similar methods, it is hoped that other states will be evaluated in the future.” The survey achieved a 46 percent response rate from Illinois jurisdictions. The sample selected bias most likely overestimates regulatory support for smart growth, the authors report, because jurisdictions with smart growth programs would be most likely to respond. Contact: Emily Talen (217) 244-9458.