form-based-code-framework

name	form-based-code-framework
description	Translate urban design goals into regulatory language - identifying what code provisions enable walkable urbanism, diagnosing what in existing codes prevents good outcomes, and writing specific form-based standards that can be adopted.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"sethmblack","version":"1.0.4025"}
repository	https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords	["form-based-code-framework","urban-planning"]

Form-Based Code Framework

Translate urban design goals into regulatory language - identifying what code provisions enable walkable urbanism, diagnosing what in existing codes prevents good outcomes, and writing specific form-based standards that can be adopted.

---

Constitutional Constraints

• Do not write codes that require variance for good design - The code should make good urbanism by-right
• Do not propose regulations without implementation pathway - Consider adoption mechanisms (overlay, amendment, replacement)
• Do not ignore existing legal framework - Code must work within state enabling legislation
• Do not overcomplicate - Prefer simple, enforceable standards over elaborate systems
• Acknowledge calibration needs - Standards must be adjusted for local context

---

When to Use

• Diagnosing why a jurisdiction produces sprawl despite good intentions
• Writing development standards for new planned communities
• Proposing zoning amendments or overlay districts
• Converting Euclidean zoning to form-based codes
• Creating standards for specific sites or districts
• Advising developers on what code changes to request

---

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
design_goal	Yes	What urban form or character is desired
current_code_issues	No	Known problems with existing regulations
jurisdiction_context	No	State/local legal context, existing zoning framework
target_transect	No	Intended transect zone(s) for the area
site_specifics	No	Lot sizes, street frontages, existing buildings

---

The Form-Based Code Approach

Euclidean vs. Form-Based: Core Difference

Aspect	Euclidean (Use-Based)	Form-Based
Primary question	What use is allowed?	What building form is allowed?
Assumption	Uses conflict; separate them	Forms conflict; uses are flexible
Controls	Use categories, density limits, setback minimums	Building envelopes, frontage types, build-to lines
Result	Single-use pods	Mixed-use buildings in coherent streetscapes

Key Insight

"Design standards without a code are just opinions. A code is law."

The code determines what gets built. If the code mandates setbacks, parking minimums, and use separation, you will get sprawl regardless of design guidelines, charrettes, or good intentions.

---

Code Audit Process

Step 1: Identify Problem Provisions

Review existing code for sprawl-mandating provisions:

Category	Sprawl Provision	Look For
Setbacks	Minimum setbacks	"Buildings shall be set back at least X feet"
Parking	Parking minimums	"X spaces required per 1,000 SF"
Use Separation	Single-use zoning	"Residential uses prohibited in commercial districts"
Lot Size	Large lot minimums	"Minimum lot size: 10,000 SF"
Block Length	No maximum	[Absence of block length limits]
Street Width	Wide street requirements	"Minimum 36-foot pavement width"
Density Caps	Units per acre limits	"Maximum 8 dwelling units per acre"

Step 2: Diagnose Impact

For each problem provision, identify:

1. What it mandates: The physical outcome required
2. Why it exists: Original (often outdated) justification
3. What it prevents: The good urbanism it makes impossible

Step 3: Propose Corrections

For each problem provision, write corrective code language.

---

Form-Based Code Elements

Building Placement Standards

Instead of: Minimum setback 25 feet Use: Build-to line at 0-6 feet from right-of-way

Standard	T3	T4	T5	T6
Front setback (min)	10'	5'	0'	0'
Front setback (max)	30'	15'	6'	2'
Side setback (min)	5'	0'-3'	0'	0'
Rear setback (min)	15'	10'	5'	0'
Lot coverage (max)	50%	70%	90%	100%

Building Height Standards

Standard	T3	T4	T5	T6
Stories (min)	1	2	2	4
Stories (max)	2.5	4	6	unlimited
Height at setback	N/A	N/A	Match adjacent	Match adjacent

Frontage Type Requirements

Frontage Type	Description	Appropriate Zones
Shopfront	Retail display at sidewalk, recessed entry	T5, T6
Gallery	Colonnade covering sidewalk	T5, T6
Arcade	Covered walkway within building	T5, T6
Stoop	Elevated entry, stairs to sidewalk	T4, T5
Porch	Covered semi-private transition space	T3, T4
Forecourt	Recessed courtyard at entry	T4, T5
Dooryard	Elevated yard with fence/wall	T3, T4

Parking Standards

Instead of: Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 SF Use: Maximum parking; location requirements

Standard	T3	T4	T5	T6
Minimum required	Per market	0	0	0
Maximum allowed	N/A	1.5/unit	1.0/unit	0.5/unit
Location	Side/rear preferred	Rear only	Rear/structured	Structured only
Front lot parking	Permitted	Prohibited	Prohibited	Prohibited

Street/Thoroughfare Standards

Element	T3	T4	T5	T6
Travel lane width	11-12'	10-11'	10'	10'
On-street parking	Optional	Required	Required	Required
Sidewalk width (min)	5'	6'	8'	12'
Tree planting	Informal	Regular	Regular	Urban
Curb radius	25'	15'	10'	5'
Block length (max)	N/A	600'	400'	300'

Use Standards

Instead of: Detailed use categories with conditions Use: Broad use permissions by transect zone

Use Category	T3	T4	T5	T6
Single-family	By right	By right	Limited	N/A
Townhouse/rowhouse	Limited	By right	By right	By right
Apartment (small)	Conditional	By right	By right	By right
Apartment (large)	N/A	Limited	By right	By right
Retail (neighborhood)	Conditional	By right	By right	By right
Retail (general)	N/A	Limited	By right	By right
Office	Conditional	By right	By right	By right
Civic	By right	By right	By right	By right

---

Output Format

## Form-Based Code Analysis: [Project/Area Name]

### Design Intent

**Target Character:** [Description of desired urban form]
**Target Transect Zone(s):** T[_] to T[_]
**Key Objectives:**
- [Objective 1]
- [Objective 2]
- [Objective 3]

### Current Code Diagnosis

| Problem Provision | Current Language | Impact | Priority |
|-------------------|------------------|--------|----------|
| [Provision 1] | "[Quote from code]" | [What it prevents] | HIGH/MED/LOW |
| [Provision 2] | ... | ... | ... |

### Recommended Code Language

#### Building Placement

**Section [X]: Build-to Lines**

> In the [District Name], buildings shall be located within the build-to zone as follows:
> - Primary frontage: [X]-[Y] feet from right-of-way
> - Secondary frontage: [X]-[Y] feet from right-of-way
> - Frontage buildout: minimum [X]% of lot width

**Section [X]: Building Height**

> - Minimum height: [X] stories / [X] feet
> - Maximum height: [X] stories / [X] feet at build-to line; [X] stories / [X] feet with stepback

#### Parking

**Section [X]: Parking Requirements**

> - Minimum parking: None required
> - Maximum parking: [X] spaces per [1,000 SF / dwelling unit]
> - Location: [Rear of buildings only / structured / underground]
> - Surface lots: [Prohibited on primary frontage / limited to X% of lot area]

#### Frontage

**Section [X]: Frontage Types**

> The following frontage types are [required/permitted] in [District Name]:
> - [Type 1]: [Description and standards]
> - [Type 2]: [Description and standards]

#### Uses

**Section [X]: Permitted Uses**

> The following uses are permitted by right in [District Name]:




 [Overlay district / Text amendment / New chapter / SmartCode adoption]


 [Step 1]
 [Step 2]
 [Step 3]


 [Concern 1]: [Response strategy]
 [Concern 2]: [Response strategy]

---

Error Handling

Situation	Response
Unknown state enabling legislation	Note uncertainty; provide model language adaptable to context
Conflicting objectives (density vs. character)	Present trade-offs explicitly; recommend transect calibration
Existing legal constraints (deed restrictions, etc.)	Identify non-code barriers; note limitations of code reform
Political infeasibility	Provide incremental pathway; prioritize highest-impact changes

---

Integration

This skill is part of the Andres Duany expert persona. Use it after transect analysis has diagnosed problems, to provide codifiable solutions. It chains with:

• transect-analysis - Diagnose before prescribing; understand the target zone before writing code
• charrette-design-process - When code adoption requires political support, design stakeholder engagement process