The official Site of the Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission

What Do the Experts Say About Philadelphia’s Existing Zoning Code?

March 13, 2009

ZCC Regular Session

Zoning experts hired to evaluate Philadelphia’s zoning code found the 650-page code to be outdated, difficult to understand, and complicated to navigate. The current code was adopted in 1962 and amended more than a 1,000 times since then. In a report to the ZCC, the consultants described zoning in Philadelphia as “a regulatory patchwork that does not efficiently address the contemporary needs of a modern city.” Based on the consultants’ experience in similar-sized cities, the need to consolidate districts, fit standards to neighborhood context, and incorporate “place-making” regulations stood out for Philadelphia.

While much of the experts’ assessment aligned with public opinion and code user views on zoning in Philadelphia, the consultants identified specific parts of the code that are too complex or create barriers to development. The consultants carefully analyzed the regulations in relation to the zoning mapi and statistics on the current workload at the ZBA, so that their observations and findings began to provide a framework for reform:

  • Consolidation. Nearly half of the 31 residential districts apply to less than one percent of the total land zoned for residential uses.
  • Balance. Twenty percent of  land in Philadelphia falls within two industrial zoning districts. In other cities, about 20 percent is residential and another 30 percent covers everything else.
  • Fit. Existing standards make most lots nonconforming. For example, in the R10A District, 90 percent of lots are nonconforming. From 2001 to 2007, the same district generated 1,636 applications to the ZBA, representing 13 percent of all cases brought before the board.
  • Incentives. High commercial vacancy rates indicate a need to consider incentives and less regulation to promote reuse. In 2003, the retail vacancy rate was 23 percent.
  • Simplicity. Regulations are overly complex; users are uncertain about what is required. For example, side yards are based on the height of legally required windows and special requirements apply to courts with legally required windows, without required windows, for inner courts, outer courts, narrow streets, etc.

The consultants identified other key areas of reform, including the importance addressing place-making controls and urban design, sustainability, parking and other modes of access, and process. In Duncan’s view, the fact that variances can be requested and obtained for nearly any regulation in any district is the number one cause for concern.

Next steps include a report on zoning best practices, a report on alternative code structures, and a final recommendations report. Based on the interim assessment, the consultants recommended the following target areas for research on best practices and code structures: techniques for streamlining approval procedures, while providing effective public involvement; appropriate sustainability regulations; parking provisions; historic preservation and building form controls; modular zoningi; and web-based codes.

Comments on the report are welcome and may be submitted to zoning.commission@phila.gov.

To view the consultant PowerPoint presentation and other handouts from the ZCC’s March 11 meeting, visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/commission/meetings. For video coverage of the presentation and ZCC reaction, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/8455 .