Model TOD Zoning Ordinance (PDF, 3.7 MB) - Reconnecting America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

June 29, 2001 ν Model Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinancewhich is discussed further in the Case Studies section of this report. (See Case Study #3 inChapter III. Case Studies.)The role of TODs as employment nodes is supported by Robert Cervero’s 3-dimensional spatialanalysis of the employment densities in the San Francisco Bay Area, which shows a strongcorrelation to the BART alignment. (See Figure 2.7)Figure 2.7: Employment Densities in the San Francisco Bay Area closely correlate with theBART alignment. NCervero’s studies show that employment in BART zip codes grew by 30.3 % from 1981 to 1990,capturing 57.1 % of the growth in the Bay Area. However more than 95% of this growth occurredaround the four downtown San Francisco stations. O Though this does not speak directly forBART as a stimulus for employment growth at outlying TODs (the majority of East Bayemployment growth took place at campus-based office parks along the Interstate 680 corridor), itdoes show that higher levels of transit access, in TODs or traditional center cities, has the abilityto stimulate growth above the average, and to slow or reverse the exodus of jobs from existing(downtown) employment centers by providing points of reduced commute costs. (The peaksindicating East Bay suburban employment centers speaks more to local policy and marketeffects.)The reality is that the relationships of factors affecting land values are more complex than thisbasic model suggests. The fact that BART’s surface lots have increased in value is due more toland shortages within a metropolitan area that is continuing to add jobs and population with theNBernick and Cervero 168.OCervero reports that of the BART-related growth, the East Bay captured only 1.1%. Therefore 29.2%of the 30.3% overall BART-related growth must be attributable to growth in San Francisco.Page 12 νChapter II ν Valley Connections
Model Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinance ■ June 29, 2001may not be strong enough to trigger TOD projects on its own; other supportive policies andmarket conditions are usually necessary. For example, although the Pleasant Hill BART Stationwas completed in 1971, development did not begin until 1984, when the county created thePleasant Hill Redevelopment Area as a model for TOD housing, putting $40 million towardinfrastructure improvements to attract new development. Up until the early 1990s, the 125 acresaround the BART station were built-out; yet, the station itself had not received any developmentactivity. Today, development on BART’s station properties is moving forward due to the currentupward trend of the local market, with plans for residential, office, and civic uses.In contrast to Pleasant Hill, several station sites have not met expectations for success, because oflower land values surrounding the station area (beyond 2,000 feet). Numerous efforts along thesystem have followed a similar course. Planning for new development around the FruitvaleBART Station may have focused much attention on its potential as a vital transit village, but thisis the result of long-term efforts by the Spanish Speaking Unity Council, a local CommunityDevelopment Corporation. Before the 1993 charrette, when architects and designers gathered toformulate a vision for the transit station, the Fruitvale Neighborhood was made up largely ofminority Hispanic families on limited incomes and marginal local businesses attractive only tothe immediate neighborhood. Since 1993, the continued expansion of the Hispanic community inthe Bay Area and the general increase in economic activity have added to the vitality of theneighborhood, a similar situation to that of Barrio Logan in San Diego.Yet, some developers do actively seek development rights along transit lines and speculation doeshappen, many times successfully. In Denver, Colorado, The Commons is an infill projectsurrounding a planned station on the Central Platte Valley LRT Line, which is currently underconstruction. The site was purchased by one developer who then initiated work with the City ofDenver on a master plan for the area. With the special PUD zoning in place, the master developerproceeded to sell portions of the property to individual developers at a premium. A more in-depthdiscussion of The Commons is presented in Chapter III. Case Studies.Still, it is more often the case that local jurisdictions and redevelopment agencies must work tonurture development. The City of La Mesa’s Central Redevelopment Area is located along theSan Diego trolley system. The crowning piece of this project is the La Mesa Village Plaza, whichincorporates a trolley stop into its central plaza. Surrounding the plaza are four multi-storybuildings consisting of 62,500 square feet of office space and 29,000 square feet of retail spacelocated below 95 upper-end residential condominium units, in addition to restaurants and otheroffice space. Structured and grade-level parking provide 287 on-site parking spaces (1 space perdwelling unit and 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use). Additional streetscapeimprovements and infrastructure improvements around the trolley stop help to tie this majorproject into the fabric of the urban center of downtown La Mesa.The La Mesa Village Plaza mixed-use project was long in the making. Market conditions,financing, and hydrocarbon soil contamination hindered earlier attempts at redevelopment on thiskey site. The Redevelopment Agency took responsibility for clean up of the site to enable thedeveloper to secure project financing. Since the Central Redevelopment Area was adopted in1973, the county estimates that the 55-acre area has generated over $3.2 million in additional taxrevenues.Valley Connections ■ Chapter II ■ Page 13
Page 4 and 5: June 29, 2001 ■Model Transit-Orie
Page 10 and 11: June 29, 2001 ■ Model Transit-Ori
Page 57 and 58: Model Transit-Oriented District Ove
Page 71 and 72:
Model Transit-Oriented District Ove
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75:
Page 78 and 79:
June 29, 2001 ■Model Transit-Orie
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151:
show all

Model TOD Zoning Ordinance (PDF, 3.7 MB) - Reconnecting America

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?