DSM SG Audit-Final

Brett Lorenzen

Informations

• Publié par: Nesog
• Nombre de lectures: 17
• Langue: English

Extrait

Final Report
on the
Des Moines Metropolitan Area
Smart Growth Audit
Submitted to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
and
1,000 Friends of Iowa
by
Iowa State University Extension
Ames, Iowa
December 2006Acknowledgements
This project involved gathering and analyzing the core development regulations of fifteen
communities in a short period of time. This would not have been possible without the
cooperation and efforts of a number of people along the way. David Doyle, EPA Region 7
agreed to fund the grant request of 1,000 Friends of Iowa, which started this process. Jonna
Higgins-Freese, then-Executive Director of 1,000 Friends of Iowa initially contacted Iowa State
University Extension about the study, brainstormed with us about potential research design, and
agreed to fund our sub-contract. Nearly fifty local elected officials, appointed planning and
zoning commissioners, and planning and zoning staff from the Des Moines metropolitan area
communities attended the April 2006 workshop and provided advice and feedback on the
project. Finally, a special thank you goes to those planning and zoning staff members who
cooperated with us by providing copies of development regulations and took the time to
respond to our lengthy follow-up survey to help us better understand the implementation of
these regulations.
The contribution of all these individuals is greatly appreciated.
Gary D. Taylor, AICP
Assistant Professor & Extension Specialist
ISU Extension
Principal Investigator
Lucy M. Wilkinson
Graduate Extension Assistant
Community & Regional PlanningDes Moines Metropolitan Smart Growth Audit
Executive Summary
Many communities across the nation have embraced the general principles of smart growth in
their comprehensive planning documents, but are local land use regulations also being revised to
incorporate these principles? To study this question 1,000 Friends of Iowa received a grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, to conduct a study titled “Smart
Growth for Environmental Results: Study and Decision Maker Training in the Des Moines,
Iowa Metropolitan Service Areas.” 1,000 Friends of Iowa entered a sub-contract to have Iowa
State University Extension (ISUE) perform a “Smart Growth Audit” of the zoning and
subdivision codes of fifteen communities in the Des Moines metropolitan area.
The purpose of the study was three-fold: (1) to provide community leaders in the Des Moines
metro area with information on the regulatory practices currently being promoted by smart
growth advocates as “model” practices; (2) to provide these same leaders some insights into how
their regulations stack up against current model development practices, and (3) to present
communities with a “fly-over” assessment of whether their regulations may present an obstacle
to smart growth. The study should not be interpreted as an assessment of whether an individual
community, or the Des Moines metro area generally is growing “smart.” By its very nature the
study does not capture the myriad of factors that influence the development patterns of cities,
nor does it propose to prescribe planning solutions that are best left for the communities
themselves to decide. Furthermore, the study does not take into account the administrative
practices that are individual to each community, or the degree to which development is
accomplished through more flexible code provisions such as planned unit development districts.
The audit was comprised of 48 yes/no “indicators” designed to examine the development codes
for the presence or absence of regulations and standards that are currently promoted as
supporting smart growth principles. The indicators were developed using “smart growth audit”
evaluations developed by other entities across the nation, and model smart growth codes
similarly developed by other entities.
The audit results were mixed. Indicators addressing the ability to accomplish mixed use
development and an efficient pattern of streets and blocks under current regulations were mostly
answered in the affirmative. Indicators addressing other characteristics of smart growth, such as
neighborhood walkability, compact urban design, and development that results in a range of
housing types and affordability received mixed responses. Generally, the larger communities in
the metro area had a greater number of affirmative responses than the smaller communities.
The results are not unexpected, and consistent with the limited number of audits performed in
other states without state-level growth management programs.
The study results, and even the process of developing the study parameters, brought to light the
challenges of addressing smart growth in a way that makes sense for many other medium-sized
communities such as Des Moines; the primary challenge being the absence of relatable examples
from similar communities. Nearly all of the principles and best practices of the smart growth
movement have been forged in either our largest, fastest growing metropolitan areas or in rural
areas rich in natural and recreational amenities such as lakes, forests, mountains, and coastlines.
Land values, rates of growth, and even the topography of these areas apply different economics
to development than those found in Des Moines and similar communities. Yet the Des Moines
metropolitan area and others like it face many of the same challenges from sprawl as these otherDes Moines Metropolitan Smart Growth Audit
communities. What development ideals of the smart growth movement are capable of
implementation – in terms of practical and popular support – in a metropolitan region facing
slow to moderate (in relative terms) growth, inexpensive land values on the fringe, and a host of
other factors that make outward growth a much less expensive alternative to inward and upward
growth?
Experiences across the country suggest a possible agenda for a “smart growth movement” in
metropolitan Des Moines. Regardless of size, location or rate of growth of community, the
principles more likely to be advanced are those that municipalities can adopt independently of
other municipalities; such as creating distinctive, attractive communities through greater controls
on design and street layout, and providing for more mixed land uses and pedestrian-friendly
environments. The communities can take steps to advance these on their own now. The
greater challenges are those that require significant cooperation among local governments,
citizens and developers, and coordination among local governments themselves; including
limiting the outward expansion of new development and raising densities in new and existing
developments. This is an ideal time to intensify level of dialogue on those issues in particular,
and smart growth in general; before the qualities that make this such a livable area go the way of
other former 20-minute communities. Perhaps the greatest value of the study will be if it in fact
acts as a catalyst for further dialogue on important questions about how we can define and
implement “smart growth” in a way that makes sense for the Des Moines metropolitan area.Des Moines Metropolitan Smart Growth Audit
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
Background on Smart Growth Audits ................................................................ 2
Developing the Audit Checklist for the Des Moines Area............................ 4
Initial Draft Audit Checklist.......................................................................... 4
Salisbury House Workshop........................................................................... 5
Redraft Audit Checklist................................................................................. 5
Comments on the Final Audit Checklist and the Purpose of the Audit.. 6
Conducting the Audit............................................................................................... 8
Aggregate Summary of Results............................................................................ 9
Mixed Land Use............................................................................................. 9
Walkable Neighborhoods ............................................................................ 10
Compact Building Design............................................................................. 12
Range of Housing Opportunities................................................................ 14
Distinctive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place.......................... 16
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices........................................... 17
Preserve Open Space, Farmland and Critical Environmental Areas.... 19
Fair, Predictable, Development Decisions................................................ 20
Tabular Summary of Results by Community................................................... 22
Conclusions and Observations.............................................................................. 25
References.................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A- Smart Growth Network: Ten Principles of Smart Growth.... 30
Appendix B- Smart Growth Audit Tool.................