Buffalo Green Code April 10 Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Buffalo Green Code April 10 Presentation

on

  • 1,146 views

A FORM BASED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

A FORM BASED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,146
Views on SlideShare
294
Embed Views
852

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 852

http://www.buffalogreencode.com 852

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Buffalo Green Code April 10 Presentation Buffalo Green Code April 10 Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • B U F FA L O G R E E N C O D EA FORM BASED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE April 10, 2012 Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning Byron W. Brown, Mayor
  • AT T E N D A N C E S U M M A R Y Where the attendees were from… 293 people from across the city were in attendance.
  • B U F F A L O G R E E N C O D E : A FORM BASEDUNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Agenda  Welcome - Mayor Byron W. Brown  Development Framework – Brendan R. Mehaffy, Executive Director, OSP  Introduction - Robert Shibley, Urban Design Project  New Directions in Zoning – Les Pollock & Arista Strungys, Camiros Byron W. Brown, Mayor Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning
  • BUFFALO GREEN CODE: FRAMEWORKPolicies and strategies of theComprehensive Plan, LWRP,BOAs, etc. will beincorporated into the BuffaloGreen Code. Local Waterfront Queen City Revitalization Plan Comprehensive Plan Brownfield Opportunity Areas Urban Renewal Areas
  • BUFFALO GREEN CODE: TIMELINE Land Use Plan • Project kick off Sep. 2010 • Regional Meetings Nov. 2010 • Community Workshops Mar. 2011 • Constituency Meetings Summer 2011 • Draft Land Use Plan Review Oct. 2011 • Revised Land Use Plan Summer 2012 Unified Development Ordinance • UDO Approach Meeting Apr. 10, 2012 • Community Workshops June 2012 • Draft UDO Review Sep. ‐ Oct. 2012 • New UDO Dec. 2012
  • BROWNFIELD OPPORTUNITY AREAS: TIMELINE • Project Launch Nov  2011 • Analysis and Visioning Jan   2012 • Development Options June 2012 • Master Plan Sept 2012 • Draft Nomination Document Oct   2012 • Final Nomination Document Nov  2012 • Agency and Legislative Approvals Nov  2012
  • OUR PURPOSE TONIGHTWe’ve drafted a Future Land Use Plan;now we need to write the Ordinance. Help us test the overall approach… The big ideas… And some crucial provisionsWe want to make sure we’re headed in the right direction
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… Who are you? 49% 1. Concerned Citizen 2. Neighborhood organization 3. Non-profit organization 4. Local Business 16% 5. Local Government 13% 11% 6. Other 6% 5% 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… Where are you from? 36% 1. City Center 2. East Side 3. North Buffalo 4. South Buffalo 18% 5. West Side 17% 14% 6. Outside of Buffalo 7. Other 6% 4% 4% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… How old are you? 23% 24% 1. 19 or under 20% 2. 20-29 17% 3. 30-39 15% 4. 40-49 5. 50-59 6. 60 or older 2% 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… What is your gender? 59% 1. Male 2. Female 39% 3. Other 1% 1 2 3
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… What is your race? 75% 1. Hispanic/Latino 2. African American 3. White 4. Native American/ Alaskan Native 5. Asian/Pacific Islander 14% 6. Mixed Race 4% 7. Other 0% 2% 3% 2% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • BUT FIRST, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT… Why are you here? 1. General Interest in 41% 39% Land Use and Zoning 2. To learn more about zoning 3. To represent my 18% community’s interests 4. Nothing else to do on a weekday night 2% 1% 5. I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5
  • WHAT IS THE GREEN CODE?It is Buffalo’s Future Land Use Plan With land use designations for the entire city Implementing a place-based development strategyIt will include a Unified Development Ordinance Place-based zoning Subdivision regulations Public realm design guides
  • GREEN CODE REGULATIONSWhy revise our currentregulations? Regulations don’t match existing development patterns The results can be opposite what we want today The rules aren’t clear enough to apply without interpretation Overlay zones are conflicting, confusing Some rules are roadblocks to sustainable development
  • APPROACHES FOR GREEN CODE UDOSome of the big moves will include: An emphasis on form rather than use Coordinating zoning, subdivision & public realm Integrating overlays, Urban Renewal Plans, and City codes in one documentIt’s better organized to help us creategreat places for the future of Buffalo
  • APPROACHES FOR GREEN CODE UDOSome of the big moves will include: Organizing the ordinance more logically Using lots of graphics & tables Making approval process clearIt will be easier to understand and use.
  • APPROACHES FOR GREEN CODE UDOSome of the big moves will include: Fast-tracking applications that meet the letter of the ordinanceThere’s less negotiation withstakeholders and regulators; butorganized to allow what we want andprohibit what we don’t.
  • WHAT WILL BE DIFFERENT? FORM-BASED ZONING TOOLS IN OUT + Zones defined by form & use - Districts defined by use + Generic uses - Laundry list of specific uses + Building types - Density-based development + Parking design - Minimum parking requirements + Min. & max. heights, build-to - FAR, min. yards, d.u. per acre lines
  • WHAT WILL BE DIFFERENT? FORM-BASED ZONING TOOLS IN OUT + Context-based form standards - Architectural standards + Predictable administration & by- - Discretionary rules & negotiated right development development + Public & private realm regulated - Street design divorced from in concert urban context + Graphics & simple text - Legalese
  • DISCUSSION It makes good sense to combine zoning, subdivision and public realm controls into one Unified Development Ordinance. 1. Strongly disagree 50% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 25% 5. Strongly agree 15% 6. I don’t understand 7% enough to say 1% 2% 0% 7. I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 6 71/12
  • UDO ORGANIZATIONTable of Contents1. General Provisions2. Zoning Approvals3. Subdivision Approvals4. Zones5. Form Standards6. Use Standards7. Environmental Standards8. Thoroughfare & Subdivision Standards9. Application of the Ordinance10. Definitions
  • ADMINISTRATIONA new process for zoning approvals  Completeness requirement for applications  Administrative review of routine applications  Site plan review will be required only in selected cases  New conditional use process  Administrative exceptions for minor variances & design standards  Zoning administrator to make and record ordinance interpretations
  • ADMINISTRATIONA simplified process forsubdivision approvals  Administrative subdivision  Minor subdivision  Major subdivision  Standards linked to the governing zone
  • DISCUSSION A system of conditional uses can make the ordinance both simpler and more flexible. 40% 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree somewhat 31% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 15% 6. I don’t understand enough to say 4% 4% 3% 2% 7. I don’t know2/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • DISCUSSION Because zones are clear, the majority of development can be allowed by-right so special approvals like site plan review need not be required. 1. Strongly disagree 31% 2. Disagree somewhat 29% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 12% 10% 6. I don’t understand 8% 8% enough to say 3% 7. I don’t know3/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • UDO ZONES Zones based on Future Land Use Plan: 1. Neighborhoods 2. Districts 3. Corridors
  • NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS ZONES N-1 Urban Core  Downtown  Secondary Employment Centers N-2 Urban Center  Delaware Avenue  Mixed-Use Neighborhoods  Residential Neighborhoods of Mixed Dwellings  Corner Shops N-3 Urban  Mixed-Use Neighborhoods  Residential Neighborhoods of Detached Dwellings  Corner Shops N-4 Urban Edge Single-Family Detached Homes N-S Suburban  Low Density Residential Neighborhoods  Garden Apartments & Towers
  • NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES
  • NEIGHBORHOOD ZONES
  • DISCUSSION The form-based approach (building type, siting, massing, frontage, parking, etc.) makes sense when applied to Neighborhood Zones. 1. Strongly disagree 59% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 29% 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand enough to say 4% 3% 3% 7. I don’t know 1% 1%4/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • DISCUSSION In the Neighborhood Zones, corner shops should be allowed as a conditional use. 1. Strongly disagree 40% 2. Disagree somewhat 31% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand 9% 7% enough to say 5% 6% 7. I don’t know 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • DISTRICT ZONES DISTRICT ZONES CHARACTERISTICS D-R Retail  Shopping Centers  Retail Strip Centers D-I Industrial  Office Parks  Light Industrial  Heavy Industrial D-H Healthcare Medical Campus D-E Education University Campus D-O Open Space  Olmsted  Active  Passive
  • DISTRICT ZONESThe approach to district zonesis somewhat different:  They primarily govern single user sites  They combine traditional & form-based approaches  Siting & design standards are included  Campuses may submit General Development Plans for approval
  • DISTRICT ZONES Design & Siting Standards General Development Plan
  • DISCUSSION Using a combination of form-based and traditional controls in the District Zones makes sense. 1. Strongly disagree 42% 2. Disagree somewhat 39% 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand enough to say 6% 4% 7% 3% 7. I don’t know 1%6/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • DISCUSSION The General Development Plan option for campuses allows those institutions flexible but predictable development. 1. Strongly disagree 33% 34% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand 8% 9% 7% enough to say 5% 4% 7. I don’t know7/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • CORRIDOR ZONES DISTRICT ZONES CHARACTERISTICS C-W Waterfront  Waterfront area C-T Transportation  Highways  Rail  Metro Rail  Greenways Corridor Zone Characteristics 1. C-W: Waterfront revitalization 2. Highway & Rail: Protect land use 3. Greenway: Evaluate improvements & design of adjacent areas 4. Metro Rail: Transit-Oriented Development principles
  • DISCUSSION The Metro Rail Corridor should be based on Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) principles. 1. Strongly disagree 66% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 22% 6. I don’t understand enough to say 4% 4% 7. I don’t know 0% 3% 2%8/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • USE STANDARDSThe current structure of usecategories is too specific, confusing,and obsolete  It’s cumulative – uses permitted in the least restrictive districts are typically allowed by reference in other districts  Permissions listed by specific uses  Use restrictions are applied by district, overlay zone or URP
  • USE STANDARDS SPECIFIC USES FLEXIBLE USE
  • USE STANDARDSOur new approach is simpler,more generic.  Use categories are more general  Specific uses are called out only when there’s a specific impact associated  All uses are clearly defined  When uses have impacts, use standards apply  Conditional uses require approval  There are limits on uses within “corner shop”
  • DISCUSSION It makes sense to apply flexible use categories instead of naming every imaginable use. 1. Strongly disagree 72% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand 19% enough to say 4% 7. I don’t know 1% 1% 2% 0%9/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • FORM STANDARDS1. Permitted Encroachments  Architectural features  Accessory structures2. Accessory Structures  Comprehensive list with “sustainable” structures3. Signs  Tailored to zones & building types  Permanent, temporary, exempt, prohibited  Electronic signs  Billboard standards
  • FORM STANDARDS4. Adaptive Reuse  Special use permissions  Exemptions from certain standards5. Parking ELIMINATE ALL PARKING MINIMUMS  Comprehensive design standards  Bike parking  Loading requirements
  • DISCUSSION Minimum parking requirements should NOT be included in the UDO, allowing the market to decide how much parking is needed. 1. Strongly disagree 74% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand enough to say 12% 7% 6% 7. I don’t know 1% 1% 0%10/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • THOROUGHFARE & SUBDIVISION STANDARDS1. Thoroughfares  Match street typology with zone  “Complete Streets”  Restore traditional right-of-way  Repair urban fabric2. Block Design  Maximum block length  Prevent “superblocks”3. Street Trees & Public Art  Incorporate City ordinances  Clarify requirements4. Subdivision  Link to zone standards  Eliminate “general” standards
  • ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS1. Landscape  Landscape for parking lots  Screening requirements  Landscape in District Zones  Design standards2. Stormwater Management  Performance standard3. Environmentally Sensitive Areas  Protect natural features  Special development review4. Exterior Lighting  Minimize light pollution
  • SUSTAINABLE STANDARDSThe UDO will promote sustainability: Mixed-use, walkable environments Transit-oriented development Multi-modal environments Alternative energy production Local food production “Green” accessory structures Stormwater management Natural landscape
  • DISCUSSION Landscape and sustainability standards should be included in the UDO. 1. Strongly disagree 88% 2. Disagree somewhat 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree somewhat 5. Strongly agree 6. I don’t understand enough to say 7. I don’t know 8% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0%11/12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • DISCUSSION In terms of the overall approach to creating the Unified Development Ordinance we are... 50% 1. Way off base 2. Have some work to do 3. Headed in the right 32% direction 4. Pretty much right on the money 5. I still don’t understand 11% enough to say 4% 3% 6. I don’t know 1%12/12 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • THANK YOU!