My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.0. PCSR 02-08-2005
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2005
>
02/08/2005
>
4.0. PCSR 02-08-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:34:09 AM
Creation date
2/4/2005 2:57:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
date
2/8/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />FIGURE 5. INFILL <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />BEFORE <br /> <br />STABLE USES TO REMAIN <br /> <br /> <br />REDEVELOPABLE <br />"SUPERBLOCK" <br /> <br />REDEVELOPABLE AND <br />~UNDERTILlZED LOTS <br /> <br />AFTER <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />NEW INFILL WITH TRADITIONAL <br />BLOCK-AND-LOT PATTERN <br /> <br /> <br />Development of vacant and underused sites and repair and renovation <br />of older~ structures strengthens existing urban areas. This is accomplished <br />through innovative approaches to building codes as well as zoning regulations. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />STlMULAT/NG INFILL AND REHAB/UTAT/DN ACTIVITY <br /> <br />Adjust minimum lot-size and setback requirements to reflect the small- <br />est practical lots in the neighborhood. Increase allowable densities in infill <br />locations to promote economically viable projects that will add vitality to <br />the neighborhood. This may require relief from parking requirements in <br />order to avoid the need for variances. <br /> <br />Expedite development review. Streamline review and permitting proce- <br />dures for infill projects below a specified size threshold for projects in com- <br />pliance with New Urbanist design standards. Delegate review to staff where <br />legally permissible. <br /> <br />Change parking requirements. Reduce or eliminate on-site parking <br />requirements for small-lot infill projects, allowing parking demand to be <br />fully or partially satisfied by on-street, shared, or remote parking (Figure 6). <br /> <br />Revise building codes. Revise building codes to remove provisions that <br />require rehabilitation of older buildings to current standards except when <br /> <br />Chapter 1. New Urbanist Essentials 19 <br /> <br />Established neighborhoods benefit zuhen <br />vacant and undenlsed parcels are <br />replaced by develop71'lellt that brings <br />positive activity and U eyes on the <br />street." Subdivision of large lots can <br />allow a traditional block and lot <br />pattern to be established, with new <br />buildings fronting directly on <br />the street and a renewed focus on <br />the public realm. <br /> <br />FIGURE 6. ON-SITE PARKING <br /> <br />GARAGE-FREE FRONT YIELDS <br />ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING <br />AND PEDESTRIAN COMFORT <br /> <br /> <br />On-site parking requirements add <br />significant construction costs, which pose <br />a problem for the developers of small <br />il~fill projects. \lIfhen placed in Font, on- <br />site parking also makes streets less livable. <br />Curb cuts displace on-street parking, and <br />driveways mnove landscaping and <br />windows Fom the pedestrian environment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.