My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2. PCSR 09-13-2005
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2000-2005
>
2005
>
09/13/2005
>
2. PCSR 09-13-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:33 AM
Creation date
9/26/2005 2:48:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
9/13/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 />22 Codifying New Urbanism <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Review and amend setback and height requirements. Setback and height <br />requirements should create desired relationships between the height of <br />buildings and the distance between their fa<;:ades as they face each other <br />across a street (this relationship is the "enclosure ratio" described above). <br /> <br />Illustrate relationships between street and building elements. Street cross- <br />sections can be used to clearly show desired building frontages, build-to <br />lines, sidewalks, planting strips, and travelway elements. <br /> <br />Establish minimum lot frontage buildout requirements. Specify a mini- <br />mum percentage of lot frontage to be built out with a fa<;:ade at the build-to <br />line or in the build-to zone. This type of dimensional standard helps to <br />maintain the continuity of the street wall, an essential element (in addition <br />to width-height ratios) of creating the feeling of an "outdoor room." Even in <br />lower-density neighborhoods, this requirement can foster a sense of enclo- <br />sure of the street. <br /> <br />THE MISSING LINK? REGIONAL PLANNING AND <br />LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />By Gianni Longo <br />In an ideal world, a regional plan would be the link between state planning goals <br />(or in their absence, statewide initiatives that support Smart Growth) and the gen- <br />eral plans that guide local governments' land-use policies. The alignment of state <br />" intentions and local government decisions through a regional plan should create a <br />fertile environment for the harmonious growth of regions and of municipalities <br />within them.' <br />In the re~ world, however, planning and land-use decisions in a region are <br />made by a complex web of jurisdictions and empowered bodies (counties, munic- <br />ipalities, townships, boards, metropolitan planning organizations, councils of gov- <br />ernments) and are hardly ever coordinated. Among the consequences of such a <br />fragmented decision-making environment are: sprawl; inconsistent development <br />regulations~ land-use decisions disconnected from transportation decisions; anom- <br />alous concentration of poverty in older neighborhoods and suburbs; and a discon- <br />nect between where jobs are located and where the workforce lives. These patterns <br />of development add to congestion, environmental problems and, in general, to a <br />deteriorating quality of life. Regional plans can bring coherence to metropolitan <br />regions (large and small), and create a more coordinated policy framework for reg- <br />ulation and decision making at the local level. <br />In the absence of a regional form of government, local governments have the <br />lion's share of the implementation responsibility for a regional'plan. Ensuring that <br />the recommendations of a regional plan are adopted at the local level and that they <br />find their way first into comprehensive plans and eventually into land development <br />codes requires strong support from elected and appointed officials.'Such buy-in <br />requires early involvement of those officials in the plan development, the identifica- <br />tion of clear regional choices and trade ofts, and the strong (and' defensible) support <br />of residents and stakeholders. <br />Most regional plans rely on extensive public involvement and consensus-build- <br />ing techniques to gain residents' and stakeholders' support. Through charrettes <br />and vision processes, residents have an opportunity to make vital and informed <br />decisions about the future of a region. Those decisions, if strongly supported, are <br />difficult to ignore and can dramatically affect decision making at the local level. <br />They can help translate a regional policy framework into locally adopted plans <br />and land development regulations. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.