2. HRSR 09-13-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

22 Codifying New 1lrbanism Review and amend setback and keig)Tt requirements. Setback and height requirements should create desired relationships between the height of buildings and the distance between their facades as they face each other across a street (this relationship is the '"enclosure ratio" described above). Illustrate relationships between street and building elements. Street cross- sections can be used to clearly show desired building frontages, build-to lines, sidewalks, planting strips, and travelway elements. Establish minimum lot frontage buildout requirements. Specify a mini- mum percentage of lot frontage to be built out with a facade at the build-to line or in the build-to zone. This type of dimensional standard helps to maintain the continuity of the street wall, an essential element (in addition to width-height ratios) of creating the feeling of an "outdoor room." Even in lower-density neighborhoods, this requirement can foster a sense of enclo- sure of the street. °~ THE MISSING LINK? REGIONAL PLANNING AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION By Gianni Longo In an ideal world, a regional plan would be the link between state planning goals (or in their absence, statewide initiatives that support Smazt Growth) and the gen- eral plans that guide local governments' land-use polines. The alignment of state intentions and local government decisions through a regional plan should create a fertile environment for the harmonious growth of regions and of municipalities within them.' In .the real world; however planning and land-use decisions in a region aze made by a complex web of jurisdictions and empowered bodies (counties, munic- ipalities, townships, boazds, metropolitan plazuung organizations, councils of gov- ernments) and are hazdly ever coordinated. Among the consequences of such a fragmented decision-making environment are: sprawl; inconsistent development regulations; land-use decisions disconnected from transportation decisions; anom- alous concentration of poverty in older neighborhoods and suburbs; and a discon- nect between where jobs are located and where the workforce lives. These patterns of development add to congestion, environmental problems and, in general, to a deteriorating quality of life. Regional plans can bring coherence to metropolitan regions (large and small), and create a more coordinated policy framework for reg- ulation and decision making at the local level. In the absence of a regional Eorm of government, local govemments have the lion's share of the implementation responsibility for a regional'plan. Ensuring that the recommendations of a regional plan are adopted at the local level and that they find their way first into comprehensive plans and eventually into land development codes requires strong support from elected and appointed officials. Such buy-in requires eazly involvement of those offidals in the plan development, the identifica- tion of clear regional choices and trade offs, and the strong (and defensible) support of residents and stakeholders. Most regional plans rely on extensive public involvement and consensus-build- ing techniques to gain residents' and stakeholders' support. Through charrettes and vision processes, residents have an opportunity to make vital and informed decisions about the future of a region. Those decisions, if strongly supported, are difficult to ignore and can dramatically affect decision making at the local level. They can help translate a regional policy framework into locally adopted plans and land development regulations.