|
Transit System
<br />
<br />Los Angeles
<br />
<br />New Jersey
<br />Santa Clara
<br />
<br />New York
<br />
<br />Sacramento
<br />
<br />San Francisco
<br />
<br /> V '
<br />~ ash~ngton, D.C.
<br />
<br />Portland
<br />
<br />Planning Efforts
<br />
<br />A series of planning efforts to concentrate development at stations: (1) a ci .ts'wide transportation/
<br />land-use policy to concentrate residential developments within a one-quarter-mile radius of transit
<br />stations; (2) specific station area plans for 12 of the planned stations, particularly in the Vermont
<br />corridor, Hollywood, and the San Fernando Valley; (3) a cirywide symposium on designing
<br />transit-based housing.
<br />
<br />NJ Transit recently completed "Rail Station Area & Transit Planning Handbook" for
<br />municipalities to concentrate residential development at transit stations.
<br />Worked with the city of San _rose in establishing recent transit-oriented development zoning.
<br />~H igh-densiry" housing (12-40 dwelling units per acre) within 2,000-foot radius of existing and
<br />planned stations. Aggressive transit-oriented zoning also in nearby Mountain View and
<br />Sunn.,,wale.
<br />A series of planning efforts, including a high-profile specific plan for a new "transit village" at the
<br />planned \Vasaic station.
<br />
<br />"Transit village" competition sponsored for the Butterfield station. Active transit-oriented
<br />development zoning, transit agency working with local government.
<br />
<br />BART officials have initiated a tong-term strateD, to develop and influence transit-oriented
<br />planning and zoning. Plans have been adopted or are underway in the Fruirvale, Pleasanton, Del
<br />Notre Place, and other future station areas with the active involvement of the local community.
<br />
<br />Renewed planning efforts to better integrate transit station areas into the overall community's
<br />character. Efforts are currently underway to adopt plans for Twinbrook, White flint, Grosvenor,
<br />and Bethesda station areas in Maryland. On the Virginia side, plans are being reviewed or adopted
<br />for areas around Franconia-Springfield, Ballston-Rosslyn transit corridor, and around future
<br />potential sites in TysonsCorner.
<br />
<br />Planning efforts by the transit agency (and other public entities) to link housing and transit. Since
<br />the early 1980s, a series of state, regional, and local mandates to focus growth in bus and rail
<br />transit corridors--State of Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule, Metro's Regional Urban
<br />Growth Goals and Objectives, the Tri-Met strategic plan. and Portland's Livable City Program.
<br />The transit agency, Tri-Met, also has undertaken a series of station area plans and currently is in a
<br />two-year planning effort for the west side stations.
<br />
<br />Sources: Universin., of California-Berkeley NTRAC SurvO. of Transit-BasedHousing, 1993; U.S. Department of Transportation; and communities'
<br />comprehensive plan documents.
<br />
<br />Most single-use nonresidential districts are straightforward.
<br />However, when combined with residential or other related uses,
<br />it may be necessaU' to apply a special district that accommodates
<br />the mixed uses specified in the plan. For instance, Arlington
<br />Counu' adopted the "C-O Commercial Office Building, Hotel,
<br />and Multiple-Family Dwelling District" for its Rosslyn transit-
<br />oriented development. This district provided the flexibilin,, to
<br />apply the same designation for a wide range of uses.
<br />
<br />Alternative Zoning Techniques
<br />An alternative is to adopt a more ad hoc approach by making
<br />almost all development proposals within the transit-oriented
<br />development area adhere to an overtav district (Portland) or go
<br />through a special exception process specified in the overlay
<br />district (Fairfax Count3.,). Within such regulations, performance
<br />standards, parking standards, minimum and maximum floor-
<br />area ratios (FAR), requirements for park-and-ride facilities,
<br />building setback or set-to lines, placement of parking in relation
<br />to the building footprint and orientation, specific restrictions on
<br />signs, design guidelines, and curb cuts are all tailored to the
<br />specific development area. While the advantage of this approach
<br />
<br />seems to be a more thorough treatment of alt development
<br />within a transit-oriented area, the larger issue of uniform
<br />application, minimum standards, and requirements seems to be
<br />less clear. As a practical matter, the case-by-case review process
<br />works better in situations where thc transit-oriented
<br />development plan is parcel-specific in its recommendations.
<br /> On the other hand. since all plans tend to evolve over time,
<br />it may eventually be necessary to develop a more generic set of
<br />standards and special zoning designations that can be applied
<br />through the rezoning process to all nonresidential and mixed-
<br />use proposals in the transit-oriented development area. A ] 990
<br />evaluation of the efficacy of the Rossiyn Area Plan in Arlington
<br />Counu, found that, while the "C-O" designation and other
<br />zoning tools used to implement the plan worked well, they
<br />could have been more precise and uniform in their effect. For
<br />instance, the discrepancy between the maximum allowable FAR
<br />and apparent FAR (when density bonuses were accounted for),
<br />was as much as 75 percent of the specified standard in the
<br />zoning district regulations (see FAR chart). Compounding that
<br />was the problem of parking ratios, calculated on the basis of tbe
<br />original proposed use(s), that have changed over time. The
<br />
<br />
<br />
|