Stillwater Form-Based Code Evaluation & Integration Strategy

Project type: Form-based code evaluation · development code audit · zoning integration strategy · Chapter 23 rewrite support

The challenge

Stillwater had already taken an important step toward more design-conscious development regulation through its Form-Based Code for the Corridor Redevelopment Area. The code reflected strong planning intentions: an emphasis on urban form, pedestrian-oriented design, transect-based organization, and redevelopment standards that could help shape a more walkable and context-sensitive built environment.

But good policy intent does not always translate into a code that is easy to use.

As part of the broader Chapter 23 rewrite, CivicDynamics evaluated the existing Form-Based Code through a practical question: could a developer, property owner, staff member, or reviewer use the code confidently to determine what applies, what is allowed, and how to get a project approved?

The answer was mixed. The code contained useful concepts, but it did not yet function as a fully integrated, predictable, by-right regulatory system.

CivicDynamics’ role

CivicDynamics completed a developer-oriented assessment of Stillwater’s existing Form-Based Code, focusing on how the code performs as a real-world implementation tool rather than simply as a policy document.

The review examined how a moderately experienced developer would move through the code while trying to answer five basic questions:

• What regulations apply to my site?
• What are the applicable standards?
• What can I build?
• What approval path do I need to follow?
• Can I predict whether this project will be approved?

Each part of the code was reviewed for readability, clarity of standards, ease of navigation, predictability of outcomes, and overall usability.

What the review found

The evaluation found that the existing code had a strong conceptual foundation but was difficult to use in practice.

Key findings included:

• The code lacked a clear starting point for users trying to determine what applies to a specific property.
• Applicable standards were spread across multiple sections, appendices, articles, and outside references.
• Developers had to cross-reference the Form-Based Code with other portions of Chapter 23, parking standards, signage standards, stormwater requirements, and public realm materials.
• Some requirements were measurable, while others relied on subjective terms such as “compatible,” “related,” “highly visible,” or “meets intent.”
• The relationship between conventional use-based zoning and form-based standards was not always clear.
• Approval pathways were difficult to predict because warrants, variances, alternative compliance, and discretionary review mechanisms were not organized into a simple decision-making framework.
• The code was usable only with staff assistance and prior experience, rather than functioning as a self-service regulatory tool.

In practical terms, the code asked users to assemble the rules themselves. That created friction for applicants, additional interpretation work for staff, and uncertainty for decision-makers.

The approach

CivicDynamics did not recommend discarding the Form-Based Code or starting over from scratch. Instead, the review recommended a selective retention and full reconstruction strategy — preserving the strongest parts of the existing framework while rebuilding the system into a more cohesive and user-oriented structure.

Recommended next steps included:

• Integrating form-based standards directly into the new Chapter 23 structure
• Eliminating the standalone appendix approach
• Retaining and recalibrating useful concepts such as transects, regulating plans, dimensional standards, frontage standards, transparency requirements, and parking placement strategies
• Establishing a clearer hierarchy between use-based zoning and form-based controls
• Rewriting subjective standards into measurable and enforceable requirements
• Simplifying the development review process
• Clarifying when by-right approval, discretionary approval, warrants, variances, or alternative compliance apply
• Creating consolidated standards tables, graphics, diagrams, and workflow tools
• Aligning redevelopment expectations with local market conditions

Why it matters

A development code should do more than express community goals. It should help people make decisions.

For applicants, that means being able to understand the rules before investing in design, engineering, or legal review. For staff, it means having a clear framework that can be administered consistently. For elected and appointed officials, it means receiving projects through a process that is transparent, predictable, and tied to adopted standards. For the public, it means knowing how development decisions are made and how the rules protect community priorities.

Stillwater’s Form-Based Code review helped identify where the existing framework was working, where it was creating confusion, and how it could be rebuilt into a stronger implementation tool.

Outcome

The evaluation gave Stillwater a clear path forward for integrating form-based standards into the larger Chapter 23 rewrite.

Rather than treating the Form-Based Code as a separate appendix or isolated planning tool, the recommended strategy repositioned it as part of a unified development code system: one that is easier to navigate, more objective, more predictable, and better aligned with real-world development review.

The result is a practical roadmap for transforming a fragmented code structure into a clearer and more effective regulatory framework.

“Strong development codes do not just describe the kind of community a city wants. They give applicants, staff, officials, and residents a clear path for getting there.”