Download to read offline
Uploaded byCuyahoga County Planning Commission
Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Study
The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission conducted a transit-oriented development (TOD) zoning study aimed at improving zoning regulations and policies to encourage mixed-use developments near transit stations. The study identified key areas where TOD could be enhanced and outlined obstacles within current zoning elements, noting a strong interest among communities in continuing the conversation about TOD. The document also included best practices for achieving TOD, financing strategies, and next steps for further development.
More Related Content
Similar to Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Study
More from Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Study
- 1. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ZONING STUDY Council Operations,Intergovernmental Relations & Public Transportation Committee 11/21/2023
- 2. Cuyahoga County PlanningCommission Mary Cierebiej, AICP, Executive Director Patrick Hewitt, AICP, Planning Manager Sean Kidd, Planning Intern Daniel Meaney, GISP, Manager, Information & Research Kevin Leeson, Planner Liam Leveto, GIS Technician Laura Mendez Ortiz, AICP, Planner Luke Ols, Cleveland Foundation Fellow Maureen Riley, Planner Micah Stryker, AICP, Senior Planner Paul Triolo, Planner Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Maribeth Feke, AICP, Directory of Programming & Planning Mandy Metcalf, Planning Team Lead Joey Warnkin, Planner II City of Cleveland Matthew Moss, Manager, Strategic Initiatives City of Shaker Heights Joyce Braverman, Director of Planning Daniel Feinstein, Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator City of Fairview Park Mary Kay Costello, Director of Public Service & Development Megan Otter, Community Development Planner City of North Olmsted Max Upton, Director of Community & Economic Development
- 3. TODAY What is Transit-OrientedDevelopment (TOD) The TOD Zoning Study Work to Date Phase 1: State of TOD Phase 2: Analysis of TOD Zoning Phase 3: Best Practices & Model Codes Moving Forward Phase 4: Financing TOD Next Steps
- 4. WHAT IS TOD Transit-orienteddevelopment includes a mix of commercial, residential, office, and entertainment centered around or located near a transit station. Dense, walkable, mixed-use development near transit attracts people and adds to vibrant, connected communities. " " -- Federal Transit Administration
- 5. • Proximity totransit (train or frequent bus service) • Mix of uses • Appropriate density • Close to the street • Limited parking
- 6. Project Goal To improvezoning regulations and governmental policies in order to attract more transit- oriented development to key corridors in Cuyahoga County. What Is Missing? Corridor Land Use Strategies + Coordinated Zoning + Incentive Strategy
- 7. WORKING GROUP #1 30% 52% 15% 3%0% Very High Priority High Priority Average Priority Low Priority Very Low Priority How much of a priority is transit-oriented development to your community/agency? How prepared is your community/agency to attract transit-oriented development? 9% 24% 61% 6% Very Prepared Prepared Somewhat Prepared Not Prepared Which of these zoning elements are obstacles to TOD in your community? Is your community/agency interested in continuing the conversation about TOD? 100% 0% Yes No 27.6% 21.1% 15.8% 13.2% 11.8% 2.6% 7.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Parking Requirements Setback Requirements Permitted Uses Height Requirements Design Requirements None of These I Don't Know (26 Communities + CDS + Regional Partners)
- 8. TOD ZONING STUDY Stateof TOD in Cuyahoga County Analysis of TOD Zoning Best Practices and Model TOD Zoning TOD Financing Strategies Describe the importance of TOD Identify and quantify TOD corridors and TOD examples Analyze whether existing zoning along transit lines allows TOD and identify target areas for future investment Develop best practices and model zoning for TOD that can be adopted by individual municipalities Identify TOD financing mechanisms and incentives used in other communities
- 9.
- 10. COMPLETED WORK GCRTA: TOD Guidelines (2007) GCRTA:TOD Best Practices (2007) NOACA: Regional TOD Scorecard & Implementation Plan (2016) GCRTA: Priority Corridor Update (2021) Design criteria for good transit- oriented development Lessons learned from other regions Land use typologies along major transit lines Updated priority corridors for rapid transit improvements GCRTA and Cleveland: 25 Connects (2021) BRT plan and zoning review for West 25th corridor
- 11.
- 12. Van Aken District(Shaker Heights) Top of the Hill (Cleveland Heights) Harbor 44 (Cleveland) Aspen Place (Cleveland) Image: Cleveland.com Image: City of Cleveland Heights Image: City of Shaker Heights
- 14. Determining TOD Corridors for Analysis DensestRoutes: • Population density • Job density • Occupied housing unit density Social Routes: • Non-white population • Population without a vehicle • Population in poverty
- 15. Determining TOD Corridors for Analysis 22TOD Corridors 26 Communities
- 16. Walkshed Data TOD Walkshedsaccount for: • 19% of the County’s land area • 29% of the County’s jobs • 35% of the County’s population • 47% of the County’s non-white population • 54% of the County’s population under poverty
- 17.
- 18. Recent Developments (2011– 2022) Added value from the County Fiscal Office • Developments which added more than $1m in building value • Does not include certain tax exempt projects
- 19. Recent Developments Development Trends •More than $6B worth of added value in Cuyahoga County between 2011 and 2021 • Almost $3.5B in TOD areas (57% of total) • Average of $310M in TOD areas annually $- $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000 $600,000,000 $700,000,000 $800,000,000 $900,000,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOD, Downtown TOD, Not Downtown Outside TOD Buffers $766M in added value in 2019 49% 42% 9%
- 20. PHASE 2 Analysis ofTOD Zoning
- 21.
- 22. EXAMPLE 2 • 51,055sq ft site • Vacant/Retail • Max units: 32 • Max height: 50 ft • Required front setback: 7 ft • Required parking: 153 spaces EXAMPLE 1 • 57,145 sq ft site • Apartments over Retail • Units: 79 • Height: 5 stories, approximately 60 ft • Setback: 0 ft front setback • Required parking: 106 spaces
- 23.
- 24.
- 25. OVERALL SUPPORTIVENESS Summary Score •Most Supportive: 4.5 or More • Somewhat Supportive: 3.5 • Least Supportive: 3 or Less • Excluded: Single-Family and Two-Family
- 26. ZONING ANALYSIS Summary Score •Most Supportive: 4.5 or More • Somewhat Supportive: 3.5 • Least Supportive: 3 or Less • Excluded: Single-Family and Two-Family
- 27. PHASE 3 Best Practices& Model Code
- 28. BEST PRACTICES How dowe achieve more transit- oriented development?
- 29. BEST PRACTICES How dowe achieve more transit- oriented development? Get parking right Provide safe connections Design buildings for walkability Foster vibrant public spaces Mix uses appropriately Allow for increased density Prioritize housing affordability
- 30.
- 31. MODEL TOD ZONINGOVERLAY
- 32. PHASE 4 Next Steps& Financing TOD
- 33. Lorain Road TransitCorridor Fairview Park Plan North Olmsted Plan Corridor-Wide Future Plan Lorain Midway (Cleveland) 25 Connects Transit Corridor Broadway/Turney Transit Corridor Corridor-Wide Plan Turney Road TOD Study Van Aken District Development West Boulevard Development Euclid Transit Corridor Euclid Avenue TLCI East Cleveland Zoning Updates
- 34. FINANCING EXAMPLES Hennepin County,MN Franklin County, OH Program Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program Magnet Fund Annual Funding Amount ~$2,000,000 ~$4,000,000 Source of Funding -- Transfer Tax Criteria Must be in a municipally designated Redevelopment Area or it must be established as a Redevelopment Area Targeted to current and future priority transit corridors in Franklin County Eligibility For profit developer, non-profit developer, municipality, development authority Developers Uses of Funds • New development, redevelopment, rehabilitation; • mixed-use projects; • infrastructure investments related to TOD; • strategic site acquisition New development of affordable housing (4% LIHTC projects); must secure federal tax credits
- 35. • Continued FundingResearch • Model Zoning Code Draft + Working Group Workshop • Ongoing Planning & Zoning Work • PRO Housing Grant • Exploration of County Streets for TOD Opportunities • Consideration of Other Potential County Policies NEXT STEPS
- 36. TOD UPDATES • Visitus for updates on the project: www.CountyPlanning.us/TOD
- 37. WORKING GROUP #1 30% 52% 15% 3%0% Very High Priority High Priority Average Priority Low Priority Very Low Priority How much of a priority is transit-oriented development to your community/agency? How prepared is your community/agency to attract transit-oriented development? 9% 24% 61% 6% Very Prepared Prepared Somewhat Prepared Not Prepared Which of these zoning elements are obstacles to TOD in your community? Is your community/agency interested in continuing the conversation about TOD? 100% 0% Yes No 27.6% 21.1% 15.8% 13.2% 11.8% 2.6% 7.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Parking Requirements Setback Requirements Permitted Uses Height Requirements Design Requirements None of These I Don't Know (26 Communities + CDS + Regional Partners) 82% of partners see TOD as a priority 67% of partners feel unprepared to attract TOD 97% of partners see zoning issues 100% of partners want to continue the conversation
- 38.