Laserfiche WebLink
it,/, Two examples of such regulations described <br />here are a pedestrian overlay district ordinance <br />and a street connectivit,/ordinance. <br /> Pedestrian Overlay District (POD). Pedes- <br />trian overlay ordinances are intended to result <br />tn districts and areas in which peopie are <br />able to wail( to and from their destinations, <br />and where pedestrians are given deference <br />to automobiles, Such an overiay district can <br />be considered one ora §roup of plan and <br />ordinance types that redirect. ~and-use and <br />transportation development and spendin§ pri- <br />orities toward a more balanced transportation <br />ne~work that accommodates alt modes and <br />all users. Such plans and ordinances also aim <br />to promote and improve public health but <br />by creating environments where people have <br />opportunities to incorporate physical activity <br />i'nto their daily rout.Joes. <br /> A POD provides for a specific mix Oi: uses <br />t.hat ,~'enerallv work wei[ in a pedestrian envi- <br />ronment, in addition, it would prohibit set- <br />bac?.s o~ principal buildings, contain ~tan- <br />dards [:or doe inset ot entrances in order t.o <br />protect !]edestrian movement, require .-,.'hat <br /> <br />ground floors of buildings are chiefly transpar- <br />ent. and do not present blank wafts, and <br />require that the §round floors of parking <br />g'arag'es contain commercial or service uses. <br />The overlay would also include standards for <br />the installation of awnings or canopies over <br />building entrances. <br /> <br /> ]'he local zoning map would display the <br />overlay, which may or may not have bound- <br />aries that coincide with the undedyin§ zoning <br />district. However, the standards contained in <br />the overlay would prevail over conflictin§ pro- <br />visions in the underlyin§ zone. Where the <br />overlay is silent, for example, on matters such <br />as the location of accessory buildings ;]nd <br />side yards, the underlying zonin§ district re§- <br />u[ations would control. <br /> The growin§ trend in cfties enact[n§ con- <br />nectivity requirements is reflective of several <br />larger trends .]nd forces si]apin§ planning and <br />iand development. These trends include: <br /> <br />] The new focus of many regionai and iocai <br /> t.ransportation plans that reco§nize bicy- <br /> cling and welkin§ as transportation modes <br /> (ha[ ire ~o be ,accommodated ~'oudneiv in <br /> <br /> transportation plans, models, and lundin§.: <br /> formulas. <br />· An awareness that the traditional street <br /> hierarchy of arterial, collector, and [scat <br /> streets has reinforced the probiems, caused <br /> by conventional sin§lo-use zoning of nei§fl- <br /> borhood, isolation, and inaccessibility (by <br /> ail modes, but tn particular walking') <br /> between peoples' origins and destinations. <br />· The emergence of traditional town planning <br /> principles (i.e., New Urbanism)iinto the <br /> mainstream as a community pi~.nning and <br /> desi§n approach, whether it is on a com- <br /> munit,lwide'or project-level scale. <br />· Growing reco§nition of the relationship <br /> between neighborhood desi§n and resi- <br /> dents' love( of physical activity and rates of <br /> overweight and obesity, <br /> <br />· A long-standing desire on the part of resi- <br /> dents, local officials, and others to tame <br /> the effects of the automobile on communi- <br /> ties and to provide for alternative trans- <br /> portation modes at the neighborhood, cit`/, <br /> and regional ~eveis. <br /> <br /> In general, connectivity requirements have . <br />the purposes of creating multiple, alternate <br />routes for automobiles and creating more route <br />options for people on foot and on bicycles. <br />Additional requirements can be added to the <br />ordinances to establish pedestrian routes and <br />passageways between land uses that can link <br />isolated subdivisions to each other, and create <br />[he shortest, safest routes possible between <br />ori§ins and destinations. Almost alt communi- <br />ties that. have pursued street connectivity also <br />prohibit or §really limit gated streets or §ated <br />communities. <br /> In Planning for Street Connectivity: <br />Getting [rom Here to There (PAS Report <br />May ~oo3), author Susan Handy describes <br />what supporters of connectivity point to as its <br />potential benefits and what those who <br />oppose it see as its potential detriments. <br />Perceived Benefits <br />;~ Decrease traffic on arterial streets <br /> <br />] Provide for continuous and more direct <br /> routes allowin§ for travel by nonmotorized <br /> modes <br /> <br />] Provide greater emer§enc,/vehicle access <br /> <br />:~ Improve utility connections, facilitate main- <br /> tenance, and enable efficient, trash and <br /> rec,/clin§ pickup <br /> <br />F. ONtNG PR,~CTIC2 o6.oq <br /> <br />,~MERICAN PLANNING A$SOCIAnON J p~JOe 'J <br /> <br /> <br />