Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Strategy: Scaling Back <br />The city's new zoning ordinance echoes the <br />recommendations of the master plan and <br />includes two new districts of the same name <br />and intent as the place types: NC -Neighbor- <br />hood Center and CC -City Corridor. With a focus <br />on scaling back the extent of commercial <br />development, large portions of the city have <br />been rezoned from predominantly commercial <br />districts to predominantly residential districts. <br />While rezoning ailing commercial properties <br />is not particularly unique or innovative, the <br />city's strict adherence to the master plan's <br />land -use recommendations and the scale of <br />change now supported by development regu- <br />lations is quite remarkable. <br />The city's previous zoning code included <br />four commercially zoning districts located. <br />outside of the downtown and provided ap- <br />proximately 25 miles of roadway with commer- <br />cially zoned frontage (often on both sides of <br />the road). Under the guidance of the previous <br />code, Saginaw Street emerged as the longest <br />commercial corridor, with eight continuous <br />miles of commercially zoned property spread- <br />ing from the city's northern border, through the <br />downtown, to its southern border. With such <br />a liberal application of commercial zoning, it <br />is not surprising that the number of vacant or <br />unoccupied commercial parcels is so high. <br />Collectively, the new Neighborhood <br />Center and City Corridor districts represent a <br />fraction of the properties previously zoned for <br />commercial use. The new zoning map identi- <br />fies approximately six miles of City Corridor <br />development (compared to 25) interspersed <br />with 10 small Neighborhood Centers, often <br />located at key intersections and not extending <br />more than a quarter mile in any direction from <br />that intersection. <br />Zoning Strategy: Repositioning Aging <br />Commercial Corridors <br />The areas designated as City Corridors are <br />healthy or possess market potential, but they <br />are by no means immune to the issues ofva- <br />cancy and poor property maintenance. Many <br />of Flint's commercial corridors developed in <br />predominantly residential areas where adja- <br />cent development limits commercial lot depth <br />and the ability of modern commercial tenants <br />to reposition aging properties. Larger shopping <br />centers featuring deep lots with expansive <br />parking lots exist in isolated instances, typi- <br />cally at key intersections along more significant <br />routes like state highways. <br />In seeking to implement the vision of the <br />master plan, the new zoning ordinance had to <br />establish rules for both large- and small-scale <br />commercial types, while promoting a more <br />pedestrian -friendly development palette. To <br />accomplish this, the ordinance establishes <br />two sets of distinct bulk standards, one for lots <br />with a depth less than 140 feet and another for <br />lots with a depth greater than 14o feet. <br />Shallow lots were assigned a maximum <br />front yard setback olio feet to force parking <br />to be located at the side or rear of the build- <br />ing, and the minimum lot width and area were <br />reduced to reflect typical lot dimensions within <br />older corridors. Conversely, deep lots were as- <br />signed a maximum front yard setback of 8o feet <br />to accommodate front loaded parking. Lack of <br />a front -yard minimum setback also allows for <br />outlot development and provides for flexibility <br />in locating the building at the lot line and locat- <br />ing parking in the rear. <br />Complementing the varied bulk standards <br />is a Planned Unit Development process that <br />is required for any developments greater than <br />five acres. This gives the city greater control <br />over any proposed commercial development <br />of significant size and further empowers it to <br />protect residential areas from potential nega- <br />tive impacts of development, while allowing for <br />innovative design to address site constraints <br />beyond what would typically be permitted as - <br />of -right. <br />GREEN INNOVATION DISTRICTS <br />Flint, once characterized by robust neighbor- <br />hoods and a thriving manufacturing sector, <br />is now suffering from decreasing population, <br />excessive residential vacancies, deteriorating <br />neighborhoods, and large abandoned indus- <br />trial sites. Collectively, these conditions have <br />resulted in thousands of acres of vacant and <br />underutilized land that has virtually no chance <br />of returning to its former use or development <br />pattern. In these areas, "what has always <br />been" it not a viable option for the future. <br />Some of Flint's most devastated neigh- <br />borhoods have vacancy rates in excess of 8o <br />or 90 percent, with several blocks being 100 <br />percent vacant or only occupied by structures <br />that are beyond repair or rehabilitation. Al- <br />though the individual lots are relatively small, <br />very large contiguous vacant areas can be eas- <br />ily assembled to accommodate larger uses or <br />development. Many of the largely abandoned <br />neighborhoods are located in areas adjacent to <br />or in close proximity to vacant industrial areas, <br />further adding to the overall availability of land <br />with potential for significant redevelopment. <br />Included in the vacant industrial areas are <br />some of the nation's largest brownfield sites, <br />such as Delphi East (16o acres) and Buick City <br />(452 acres). Collectively, there are more than <br />1,00o acres of brownfield sites in the city. <br />Together, the vacant industrial areas and the <br />vacant and abandoned residential neighbor- <br />hoods represent thousands and thousands of <br />acres of land currently serviced with city infra- <br />structure, but lacking the market capacity to <br />see the areas redeveloped to their former uses. <br />In seeking to transform Flint's hardest hit <br />areas, it was understood from the beginning <br />that the city would need to embrace the idea <br />of a more creative place type that prioritized <br />flexibility and context over form and use. The <br />second challenge, once the notion of flexibility <br />was embraced, was to find the central theme <br />for the areas, around which regulations could <br />be crafted to allow a viable market to emerge. <br />After consideration of various markets and <br />industry trends, it was determined that the for- <br />mer residential neighborhoods and industrial <br />areas would serve as a proving ground for the <br />green economy. <br />The idea was to put Flint at the forefront <br />of an emerging market and help lead the way <br />by establishing a regulatory approach others <br />could follow. Through the master planning <br />process, the city created the Green Innovation <br />place type to accommodate a wide range of <br />large-scale "green uses." Then the challenge <br />became how best to define a green use, miti- <br />gate the impacts of such uses, and establish <br />an approval process that accommodated flex- <br />ibility while providing necessary safeguards <br />and context sensitivity. <br />Zoning Strategy: Defining Green Uses <br />Imagine flint establishes the Green Innovation <br />place type and designates many of the city's <br />large vacant areas as such, recognizing their <br />potential for a variety of solutions to repurpose <br />these areas and help reinvent the city. As it <br />relates to land uses, the city's intent is to re- <br />main flexible. <br />Areas designated as Green Innovation are <br />intended to accommodate uses related to local <br />food production, environmental sustainability, <br />alternative energy, agricultural research, or- <br />ganic food processing, and other locally based <br />"green" initiatives. <br />Once defined in the master plan and <br />written into the intent and purpose sections of <br />ZONINGPRACTICE 5.16 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I pages <br />