Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

in codes and standards. Unfortunately, the application of these emerging tools has not been widely disseminated within the planning profession. Training Planners to Identify the Plan -Code Gap This gap between what plans promote versus what codes permit or require can be very hard to detect. In most cases, a word search is of no use in hunting down these disconnects. Consider these real world case studies: Case Study #i: A suburban comprehensive plan calls for the community to be "safe and walkable," while the subdivision code requires a minimum street width of 31 feet, a minimum block length of 600 feet, and permits a maximum block length of i,800 feet. In addition, the residential zoning establishes minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square feet and permits front drive- ways. • Identifying these gaps requires some knowledge about pedestrian safety, street design, and vehicular speed. The severity or lethality of pedestrian -vehicular accidents is pro- portionate to vehicle speed, with several studies suggesting about a five percent fatality rate at 20 mph and 45 percent at 3o mph (Leaf and Preusser 1999)• The minimum street width required in the subdivision code, combined with the presump- tion that virtually all cars will be parked off-street, invites higher vehicular speeds. Even with a posted speed limit of 20 mph, the speed at which traffic will actually travel based on these design factors, especially if the street is straight, may be closer to 3o mph. Public health research shows that pedestrians strongly prefer to walk in areas with high streetconnectivity (i.e., shorter block lengths and few dead-end streets) (Brownson et al. 2009). Block lengths of 600 to i,800 feet do not support a walk - friendly place. This gap analysis does not end at analyzing street widths and block lengths. Additional information from the zoning and subdivision code including any required parkway widths, mini- mum sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of on -street parking all affect street design speed, pedestrian safety, and the desire to walk. It is important that planners have a base understanding of how all these elements interact and that they are trained to iden- tify these gaps when they exist. Case Study #2: A town adopts a complete streets policy that emphasizes the lase of streets by bicycles and automobiles. The town also adopts an ordinance governing bicycling. Identifying this gap requires research. A cursory review via a word search might have concluded that the town had enacted a bicycle ordinance and that no gap existed. However, the first line of the ordinance requires bicyclists to ride on sidewalks and not the roadway, except in business districts or along streets without sidewalks. Case Study #3: The preamble from a recent comprehensive plan states that one of the primary goals of the plan is to "in- troduce language to address the trend toward sustainability." The plan's objectives and policy statements frequently use soft verbs, such as encourage and promote, without providing spe- cific criteria or metrics. IMPLEMENTATION METRICS Affordability -Comprehensive Automobile Independence Bikability Complete Neighborhoods Reduced Traffic Deaths Transit -Support Municipality Energy Efficient Buildings Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Affordable Housing Car -Free Housing Compact Development Connected Community LEED-Neighborhood Development Life -Cycle Housing Mixed Use Development Net -Zero Energy Buildings Parks, Open Space & Recreation Recreational Facilities Reduced Auto Dependence Storm Water Management Transit -Supportive Development Density to Support Walk -To Retail Walkable Streets Walkability H + T Affordabilty Index Walk Score Bike Score Sustainable Urbanism: Neighborhood Criteria Chicago Forward: Department of Transportatic Action Agenda Transit Score Architecture 2030 Architecture 2030 LEED-ND: NPD c4: Mixed Income Diverse Communities: Option 2 Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California-Berkely: Car Free Hous ing Research LEED-ND: NPD p2: Compact Development LEED-ND: NPD p3: Connected & Open Community LEED-ND: NPD c6: Street Network LEED-ND: All NPD Prerequisites LEED-ND: NPD c4: Mixed Income Diverse Communities: Option 1 LEED-ND: NPD c3: Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers Living Building Challenge LEED-ND: NPD c9: Access to Civic & Public Space LEED-ND: NPD c10: Access to Recreational Facilities LEED-ND: SLL c3: Locations with Reduced Automobile Dependence LEED-ND: GIB c8: Stormwater Management LEED-ND: NPD p2: Compact Development, Option 1 Sustainable Urbanism: Neighborhood Retail Supportive Density LEED-ND: NPD p1: Walkable Streets Hall Walkability Index The gap here is both passive and glaring. While there is no doubt the au- thor of this plan was well intentioned in wanting to "address" important issues of the day using sustainability language, a plan is a course of action, not simply an introduction of language. Without clear directives for action, there is no plan. If there is no actionable plan, the community will have a big plan -code gap. ZONINGPRACTICE 8.13 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage y