Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 7 Design Connect Lansing Final Report Form Based Codes Fall 2015 1 DESIGN CONNECT Form-Based Code and Land Use Analysis Town of Lansing Design Connect: Cornell University Fall 2015 Design Connect Team Members: Adam Bronfin Caren Kay Carlos Gemora Erin Tou Lauren Butts Sean McGee Stephen Wiley Tishya Rao Tony Widjarnarso Disha Mendhekar Annie Pease Tad Bell Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents 2 Project Overview 3 Town of Lansing: Existing Land Use Analysis 4 Form-Based Code: Background 11 Form-Based Code: Case Studies 14 Public Meeting Feedback 25 Form Based Code: Town of Lansing Example 26 Process Conclusions 32 Appendix 34 Bibliography 39 Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 3 Project Overview Design Connect is a multi-disciplinary, student-run, community design organization based at Cornell University. Design Connect assisted the Town of Lansing in its comprehensive planning process throughout the Fall of 2015. The project team explored the applicability of Form-Based Code, as well as other policy options for achieving the objectives of town officials and residents. Through the semester we have worked with several clients at the Town of Lansing including Board Member Ruth Hopkins, Planning Committee members Deb Trumbull and Larry Sharpsteen and Planning Consultant Mike Long. The Design Connect team has analyzed the use of Form-Based Code in comparable municipalities, the existing land use and zoning in the Town, and the local real estate market. This report summarizes the work and research the Design Connect team completed over the course of the semester. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 4 Town of Lansing: Existing Land Use Analysis The Town of Lansing currently uses a traditional, Euclidean Zoning system. Euclidean zoning is also commonly referred to as `single-use zoning' because the primary motivation and focus of the regulations are use restrictions. In contrast, Form-Based Code prioritizes regulating the form of buildings over regulating use. In the Town of Lansing's existing code regulations, the intent of districts is described as "the land use control districts in the Town of Lansing have been established in furtherance of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and for the aspirational and non-regulatory purposes of the intents described" (p. 15). The zoning regulation details the intent of each of the 8 districts which have been simplified below. The full zoning regulations are found in the Town of Lansing's zoning ordinance, available on the Town's website. Commercial Mixed Use (111) - Areas where development will be encouraged to occur in ways that can lead to an identifiable focal point for the Town. Commercial (132) - Areas where a range of retail, service and repair business, commercial and storage activities, light industry and similar land use activities that may not be compatible with objectives of the B1 district. Industrial Research (IR) - Areas where some form of light manufacturing is appropriate. Lakeshore (L1) - Areas that are adjacent or have access to the shoreline of Cayuga Lake. Residential - Low Density (111) -Areas where agriculture has been an historic use of land, but which areas are now primarily residential. Residential - Moderate Density (112) -Areas where the expected and desired use of land is a mixture of varied types of residential development at a somewhat higher development density. Residential - Mixed Use (R3) - Areas where the use of the land will change from the most traditional agricultural uses of the community to a denser residential development depending, in part, upon introduction of public water and sewage. Rural Agriculture (RA) -Areas where farming and farm-related businesses are the predominant and desire land use activities. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 5 The Town of Lansing zoning policy is fairly broad, with 8 different districts. The zoning map published by the town with different districts can be found below: L r t p r� fs - 5 t R} to J R Legend Tar Parcels 0 LansrngToum 8 Village Roads _ Tor,n of Lansing Zoning 211113 2 — Commerctai Mixed Use(B I} y 0 Cammeresal(132) r- 0 IndostrWAZesemeh(IR) 0 Lakeshore(L I) ' 0 Residential-Law Uens4(RI) L 0 Residential-Moderate Density IR?) Residen[ial-Mixed Use(R3) N Rural AgriadluW(RA) +{ Cayuga Lake ��- Figure 1: Town of Lansing Zoning Districts Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 6 Target Area Design Connect specifically focused on one smaller region of the Town: the 34/34B intersection and surrounding areas. The Target Area Zoning map shows there are various zoning districts within our target area including RA, R1, R2, R3, IR, B1 and B2. The Town selected this area for study due to its mix of uses, its centrality to the road network, and the vacant land likely to be developed in the future. Town of Lansing - Target Area Zoning The variety of zoning matches the mix of development types within the Target Area, including commercial buildings, agricultural land, residential single R3 a family neighborhoods, industrial areas and more. Each zoning district comes 1 with a series of regulations and standards that require enforcement and determine development form. The complete breakdown of requirements for each zoning district can be found on the Lansing website or by talking to any Town Official. To evaluate how well the existing zoning districts match - 10 N�,��n1—z01s 0 o.�e �.M.1es C-11 �,MLYDy,mC— the existing land use we isolated 3 NORTH St..P1...N-v rn c—tom g , Figure 2: Target Area Zoning Districts variables - or zoning requirements - and compared them to the actual buildings in Lansing. The regulations we looked at were building height, developed area per parcel and building setbacks from the street centerline. The following are the restrictions by district: Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 7 Setback Requirement Minimum Open Space Maximum Building Heig 131 - Commercial Mixed Use 60 ft 5D% 35 ft 132-Commercial 60 ft 50% 35 ft IR—Industrial Research 60 ft 75% 35 ft R1—Residential Low Density 60 ft 75% 35 ft R2—Residential Moderate Density 60 ft 75% 35 ft R3—Residential Mixed Use 60 ft 75% 35 ft RA—Rural Agricultural 60 ft 75% 35 It Figure 3: Town of Lansing Zoning Bulk Requirements Building Height Beginning with the maximum building height,we found that the Target Area conforms relatively well to the zoning regulations. The maximum building height for all buildings in Lansing, regardless of the zoning district, is 35 feet unless a variance has been established. An obvious exception to conformity in maximum building height is Rogue's Harbor on Shore Drive. Other obvious structures not in compliance with the height requirement are various barns scattered throughout the target area which are clearly over the 35-foot maximum. Overall,we did not find building height to be an issue in terms of zoning regulation enforcement. We do not think raising this height limit would greatly impact development in the Town. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 8 Minimum Open Space Minimum open space requirements vary from 50% to 75% of lot area depending on the zoning designation. In order to check compliance,we used Geographic Information Systems software. Parcel data was collected from Tompkins County (2012). In addition, building information was gathered from the county and clipped to the target area provided by the clients. The floor area of each building was calculated and joined to the related parcel. Finally, we found the ratio of the floor area to the total acreage per parcel. The results of the minimum open space analysis showed that there is 99% compliance with the existing zoning code. Out of over 740 buildings in the target area, only 1 did not conform to code. The noncompliant building was a barn on a smaller lot adjacent to another parcel with the same owner. Given the additional information, it is clear that there is essentially 100% compliance with the open space requirement. The results can be seen below: Town of Lansing 1'crkrnlaV s�l'ik.vclup�c spuucperParLd YV- i x - Figure 4: Target Area conformity with open space requirements. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 9 Setback Requirements The final zoning requirement that we examined were setback requirements. Regardless of the zoning designation, the setback requirement for all development in the target area is 60 feet. In order to compare the regulation against reality we used the same building footprint shapefile as in the open space analysis. In addition,we collected road centerline data from US Census Data provided online. With the two shapefiles,we calculated the distance from the building edge to the nearest road centerline. The map below shows the results. Any building with a red outline demarcates a building that is noncompliant: or a building with a setback less than the required 60 feet. Town (if Lansing r o 104 s-.n.11 I nir.• Ik �nsra., wlibrs Figure 5: Target Area conformity with setback requirements. The results for the setback analysis paint a much different picture of the building conformity in Lansing compared to the prior two analyses. 103 buildings, or 13.5% of the total buildings in the target area, did not meet the setback requirement. The majority of noncompliant buildings are found at road intersections. It is clear that there are also quite a few noncompliant buildings scattered throughout the more rural areas of the town. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 10 Existing Zoning Conclusion Based on the analysis conducted the zoning in Lansing fairly well matches the existing infrastructure. Minimum open space and building height are essentially non issues. However, setback requirements are not well aligned with existing buildings. In order to continue development consistent with the character of existing buildings in Lansing it is worth considering adjusting the setback requirements or switching to an alternative zoning system. Even if Lansing does not implement a Form-Based Code or another full revision of its zoning ordinance, it would be worth evaluating whether building setbacks should be reduced in certain zoning districts. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 11 Form-Based Code: Background Form-Based Code is a relatively new alternative form of zoning which regulates land use primarily through regulating form rather than regulating use. Form-Based Code first became common in the 1980s and 1990s; hundreds of municipalities have implemented Form-Based Code, and its popularity continues to grow. It has been used to regulate the form of areas as large as the Cities of Cincinnati and Miami and as small as individual street corridors. `A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and ahigh-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than the separation of uses as the organising principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town or county law. A form- based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional.Zoning regulation."-Form- Based Code Institute Many land-use regulations mix elements of Form-Based Code and traditional Euclidean zoning within a single ordinance. However, Form-Based Code can be considered distinct from traditional zoning in two ways: 1) there exist a number of template codes, the most popular of which is the SmartCode,which can be adapted for any municipality. The adoption of these codes keep the concept of Form-Based Code distinct; 2) there are certain elements which are strongly associated with Form-Based Code, including: • Transects: Form-Based Code explicitly considers the transition between high and low density development, mirroring the structure of pre-zoning development. Form- based code uses the concept of the "transect" to designate the intensity of permitted development in a particular area (shown in Figure 6 below). These transects transition from low-density Transect 1 (T1) to higher density (T6). Form-Based Codes for locations outside of major cities, such as Lansing, do not necessarily include the high-density T5 or T6 districts. The concept of transects allows for greater gradation and smoother transitions between low- and high- density areas than is typically possible with traditional Euclidean MKMWAL m2.fi MsuuRwZ.Wmno IRi.B.RI m NNE f.E4/fER m CORE zoning. Figure 6:Rural-to-Urban Transect. Source:bettercities.net Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 12 • Build-to lines: Most traditional zoning often regulates the built form of buildings with minimum and maximum requirements on various measures. Common examples include: maximum building heights, maximum lot coverage ratios, maximum floor area-to-lot area ratios, and minimum parking spaces per residential unit. However, the property owner has a great amount of leeway within these minimums, and these maximums do not determine the specific form which development takes. Form-Based Code often includes build-to lines rather than building maximums. For example, rather than requiring a maximum front setback of 40 feet, Form-Based Code might require that any be building be set back exactly 40 feet. This can give community members more certainty about what form development will take. • Form over use: Although Form-Based Code has some restrictions on what uses are permitted in a given area, it usually restrictive use less than traditional zoning. Traditional zoning,which was adopted by most US municipalities in the early 1900s, often banned commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. This made neighborhood-serving corner stores or restaurants illegal in many places. Form- Based Code relaxes this type of restriction, under the idea that neighbors are more concerned about the scale of development than about use, with the exception of true nuisances such as factories. • Details of buildings: Form-Based Code often is implemented so that new development will fit with the existing buildings. This can include requiring that new developments include features typical of the community's preferred buildings. This could include porches, types of siding or windows, or maximum percentage of opaque street-facing facade in key shopping streets. However, the regulation of this type of building detail is not a feature of all form-based codes. • Clear regulation with images: Zoning ordinances are often complex and difficult to understand,with long descriptions of each regulation. Form-Based Code often uses images to demonstrate the outcome of the regulation,which is typically more legible than text alone. Since Form-Based Code typically has more specific requirements, anyone can view these images and understand. An example from the Form-Based Code of Malta, NY is found in Figure 7 below. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 13 211.-RA-2:Co"io•llilin R&2 en al Al shed rm fA.2 bmkmj o rro 75-mmviomh=dw■rm dt:kY&=tmd and Wm'=5 bLdc"gN-Mn■pmftdhmhri-- V - j �di A. Rum-rKud'kIldry 1Ypns �� ■ Tv�n� - ■ e-4 Ch- H. Maxrn.rn Huloing Hoighft �aa T�w�-Ja�ar,Catir��v�dY�d�d F�� C tis��ry I I Case Studies To explore how Form-Based Code could be applied to the Town of Lansing, the Design Connect team reviewed examples from other municipalities which share some characteristics with Lansing. These examples are found in the following sections. Team members reviewed the code in each municipality, spoke with town officials or consultants involved in each zoning process, and reviewed news articles which recorded each process and the reception of each code. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Form-Based Code Case Study: Saratoga Springs MI -I I_ Illnll�lm -I: Oman w,A ei� ---` - II — blllll-.- �i ■t `r e OLll,"� 1 an Figure 8: The Springs, Saratoga Springs, NY. Source:Photo taken by Sean McGee 1. Why did we select this municipality? Saratoga Springs, New York,was selected as a case study primarily because of its geographical similarity to Lansing New York. As an upstate New York municipality that adopted a Form-Based Code in 2003, it was "one of the first communities to adopt a `SmartCode' to implement comprehensive place principles." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) Finally, Saratoga Springs was also selected as a case study because the decade during which the Form-Based Code (FBC) was adopted showed the measurable effects of the Code upon the area. 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement a Form-Based Code? Since the 1980s, the City of Saratoga Springs had sought to "to preserve and add onto the historic fabric of its downtown" by enhancing many of its urban qualities, particularly, that of the city's primary downtown thoroughfare, Broadway. (Langdon, 3) Despite some of its present buildings undergoing renovation and restoration in that area, new construction was sluggish. In 1994, a project called Congress Park Centre was started as the result of a planned unit development ordinance. (Langdon, 3) As construction began, the City of Saratoga Springs "realized that pedestrian-friendly fixed use development could be encouraged through a form-based code." (Langdon, 3) Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 15 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? The Form-Based Code was primarily created with the help of two consultants,Joel Russell of Northampton, Massachusetts, and Environmental Design & Research of Syracuse, New York. (Langdon, 3) Additionally,volunteer committee members and planning staff assisted with the process. (Langdon, 3) 4. How long did the implementation process take? The implementation process took nine years. The discussion of a FBC first began in 1994 with the development of the Congress Park Centre and the Code was finally adopted in 2003. (Langdon, 3) 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? According to a presentation prepared by Joel Russell for the Massachusetts Municipal Association in January, 2011, the initial public response to a FBC was one of both confusion and skepticism. Quotes included in that presentation indicated that residents in Saratoga feared that too much power would be given to the Planning Board and that a FBC would encourage overgrowth. (Russell, 25) 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? In Saratoga's comprehensive plan the downtown district was identified as a special development area. The transect model was applied to the downtown district and, as a result, the area was divided into three urban transect categories that replaced the existing zoning districts: the Urban Neighborhood (T-4), Neighborhood Center (T-5), and Urban Core (T- 6)." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) Design Standards were applied "for setbacks, height, parking location, street design, facade treatments, and creation of a public realm." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) All uses are permitted in the T-6 zone. Both the T-5 and T-4 zones require the issuance of a special use permit for any new proposed use through a "flexible review process." (Rouse and Zobl, 5) As of 2011, following the adoption of a FBC, the city of Saratoga Springs approved fifteen major projects that reflect over $200 million and over one million new square feet. (Russell, 28) Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Form-Based Code Case Study: Malta, NY ■GOFk m�6an lb.tl IM - '©RF1:ODnn bAn lY�.M1�AlISMtl . •I Go��n:21btl __ ❑py4l: vxib�nAVo-IrbO ❑k+i oom�.n�.w A1wJ.a ❑IeQiLwnb—Irltl�h�Gtlrh.d ours dn.1�o Gk Oan lwu Figure 9:Downtown Malta Zoning Map 1. Why did we select this municipality? Malta, New York,was selected as a case study for our project primarily because its geographic context is similar to that of Lansing in upstate New York. Additionally,we selected Malta because a Form-Based Code (FBC) was recently adopted by the municipality earlier this year. Malta was also recommended to us by Shannon Bush, a current Project Planner at the Chazen Companies and a former resident of Lansing. She is a graduate the Master in City and Regional Planning degree program at Cornell University. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 17 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement Form-Based Code? The Town of Malta sought to implement a Form-Based Code as a way of taking a "proactive approach towards preserving its community character while simultaneously capitalizing on new community investments" that had emerged from the development of the Luther Forest Technology Campus and the Global Foundries computer chip manufacturing facility. (Code Studio, 2) Malta desired "to create an attractive mixed use Downtown centered on an integrated multi-modal transportation network,with an improved and inviting pedestrian and bicycling environment." (Code Studio, 2) 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? In addition to the Town Board and planning staff, several consultants were hired to assist with the implementation of a FBC in Malta. Code Studio based in Austin, Texas was hired to serve as lead consultants on the project. Code Studio "in turn enlisted a team of specialists" consisting of Third Coast Design Studio based in Nashville,Tennessee, Howard Stein Hudson Associates in Boston, Massachusetts, and Fuss & O'Neill in Hartford, Connecticut. (Code Studio, 2) 4. How long did the implementation process take? In 2011, the town of Malta's Downtown Plan "recommended that the Town develop a form-based (zoning) code and complete streets plan for downtown." (Code Studio, 2) Following the hiring of the consultants listed above, a consultant held a walking tour of downtown Malta in March, 2012. The tour led into a Charrette Week, held from March 24- 28, 2012. A draft FBC was published in July, 2012. The FBC was subsequently adopted by the Town Board in February, 2014. (Town of Malta) The FBC was then revised by the Town Board in March, 2014, and finally adopted for a second time in May, 2015. (Town of Malta) 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? The initial public reaction to a FBC in Malta appears quite mixed. As reported in the Ballston Journal on February 5, 2013,while several officials praised the adoption of a FBC, one resident expressed the following: "I'm really concerned about the honesty of this board... The people have spoken: we do not want this." (Erchak) It is important to note that the initial adoption of a Form-Based Code in Malta required revision in order to refine Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 18 architectural standards. During the revision process, other residents expressed their concern that this new form of zoning was "very restrictive." (Connor) 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? The revised FBC was adopted by Malta in May, 2015. As such, it is too early in the process to determine the success of the FBC at this point in time. Subsequent research at a later date would aid the assessment of the success of a FBC in Malta, NY, as presently, a prediction would be premature. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Form-Based Code Case Study: St. Lucie County, FL 1. Why did we select this municipality? St. Lucie County is unique for its successful implementation of the first regional FBC called Town Village County Code (TVC). It is a transect-based SmartCode and includes a regional street network that aims at creating a sustainable growth pattern for the St. Lucie County. Like Lansing, St. Lucie County includes adjacent agricultural and residential areas. 2. Why did the municipality seek to implement FBC? It was created as a result of growth pressure on a 28-square mile agricultural area near Fort Pierce. The plan wants to focus development in new villages surrounding the concentrated farmland to keep the balance of rural vs. urban development throughout the county and protect 60- 70% of rural citrus farmland. The TVC is an amendment in the Comprehensive Plan that ensures sustainable development characterized by a mix of uses, building types, income levels and pedestrian- friendly blocks and street network. It also gives emphasis to public open space, future agricultural practices and how to mitigate the environmental impact of new development in the area. 3. Who was involved in the process? Apart from the Planning Department of St. Lucie and the State Board of County Commissioners of Florida,who take a prominent role in urban planning decisions throughout the state, Dover Kohl and Partners is private firm that was hired for consultation and design. Residents of the county also actively participated, providing input during town meetings. 4. How long did the process take? The plan was completed in 2006 and was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007. The approval for the first village however,Village of Sunset Lakes, was approved and implemented only in 2010. 5. What was the public reception? There was a lot of anticipation and collaboration among the Planning Board, residents and Dover Kohl and Partners during the planning process. Many farmer owners however were Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 20 skeptical of diminished development rights. 6. Were the FBCs successful? Although approved in 2007, implementation was delayed as a result of financial crisis in 2008. The first successful implementation in Village of Sunset Lakes in 2010 and received support from majority despite obstacles as a result of public participation. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Form-Based Code Case Study: Beacon, NY le Md.- w�a ��r e' Figure 10:Beacon Zoning Code. Linkage District. Figure 21-0:Illustrative View of Proposed Linkage Zoning Requirements ip r r ca npz..; �9ivo pH 1 Figure 11:Main Street, Beacon. ©2015 Houlihan Lawrence. 1. Why did we select this municipality? The City of Beacon, New York was selected as a case study for this report because it is an Upstate New York municipality of comparable size to Lansing,with a similar attachment to its beautiful natural environs. The code eventually adopted by Beacon makes use of a type of Form-Based Code that is often called Transect-Based code or SmartCode; the town's predominating transect being similar to what is found in Lansing. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 22 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement a Form-Based Code? The City of Beacon sought to use Form-Based Code as a way to spur new development in the corridor along Main Street between the East End and West End Districts and the Linkage district that runs from West End to the train station. The new zoning was meant to encourage appropriate infill development in these prime locations that fits with existing historic buildings and reflects the artistic, design-oriented community (Russell, Beacon Comprehensive Plan). 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? The Form-based code was developed and written by consultant Joel Russell of Northampton, Massachusetts with the overall concept, graphics and community outreach plans by John Clarke, Dutchess County Department of Planning. Community meetings were held in the town to facilitate explanation of FBCs and elicit public input. 4. How long did the implementation process take? The directive to write the Form-Based Code for the Main Street and Linkage districts in was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan that was developed between 2004 and 2007. The Form-Based Code itself was adopted in 2013 (Stowe, Russell). 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? In the public meetings, Form-Based Code was received as generally positive by the town of Beacon. Residents did have two primary concerns with respect to encouraging more development. First, residents cherish the view from downtown of Mt. Beacon and did not want buildings blocking that vista (Stowe). Second, people were concerned about gentrification, especially given the proximity to New York City. As a result, provisions for affordable housing were written into code (Joel Russell). 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? It is still too early to make an assessment on the success of Beacon's Form-Based Code. As of this writing, plans for new development have been submitted indicating interest by developers. There have been a few hitches in the approval process for a few buildings that take advantage of the height exceptions allowed in code Qoel Russell). Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Form-Based Code Case Study: Port Royal, SC All � Si• Figure 12:Proposed Mixed Use infill in Traditional Neighborhood Plan, 1995 for Port Royal 1. Why did we select this municipality? Port Royal, South Carolina was selected as a case study for this report because it is a municipality of comparable population density to Lansing. Port Royal and Lansing are both historic towns,with a similar attachment to their beautiful natural environs. The code adopted by Port Royal makes use of a type of Form-Based Code that is often called Transect-Based code or SmartCode,with the town's predominating transect being similar to what is found in Lansing. 2. Why did this municipality seek to implement a Form-Based Code? Despite the economic boom of Beaufort County (where Port Royal is located) in 1960s, 1970s and 80s, Port Royal received a small share of growth. The town's location at the bottom of the peninsula contributed to Port Royal being overlooked by the real estate and excluded from development. Port Royal also had a large number of historic properties dispersed and spread out across the town. Form-Based Code was thus seen as a measure to manage and preserve a variety of historic buildings using Traditional Neighborhood Development as an alternative to a preservation ordinance, and as a means to attract real estate and foster development in the town. 3. Who was involved in the implementation process? The Form-Based Code called Traditional Neighborhood Development was developed and written by consultant Dover- Kohl and Partners. Also involved in organizing community Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 24 and public meetings was the Town of Port Royal and the Town Supervising Planning Committee especially set up for the formulation of the TND plan for Port Royal. 4. How long did the implementation process take? Dover- Kohl and Partners began working on TND for Port Royal in the initial months of 1995 and the code was adopted on 7th Dec 1995. The town further contracted Kohler and Dove for 5 years to review the plan twice a year. In 1997, an Overlay district code was adopted for the town that focused on existing development and built upon the existing TND plan for Port Royal. 5. How was the Form-Based Code received by the public? TND was sought as a means of promoting community and economic development. It focused on promoting traditional houses, increasing home ownership, and increasing public participation. Dover and Kohl spent six months in residency in the town of Port Royal to get a better understanding of the town and the needs of the people. "Hands-on Saturday" were organized every Saturday which included focused group discussions, community mapping for both existing and required aspects. Because of intensive public participation, the plan was very well received by the public once adopted. 6. Was the Form-Based Code viewed as successful? Traditional Neighborhood Plan for Port Royal was one of the first Form-Based Codes to be adopted across the United States. The TND plan for Port Royal (1995) was a thirty-page document with only thirteen pages of text; the rest were drawings. It focused on the principles of neighborhood, street, open space, parks, and lucratively attracting the "right kind of developers". In 1996, the Congress for New Urbanism ranked Port Royal's TND plan in top 10 TNDs in the United states. The plan has been very successful and Port Royal has been able to witness a boom in construction and redevelopment ever since the adoption of the Form-Based Code. A new Form-Based Code was adopted in 2014, built upon the TND adopted about 20 years ago. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell Public Meeting Overview and Feedback Summary On November 12th, the Design Connect team held a public meeting for residents of the Town of Lansing. The Town advertised the meeting to residents by sending out postcard notifications through the mail. We structured the meeting by introducing the definition of Form-Based Code, providing examples of places Form-Based Code has been implemented using our case studies, and eliciting feedback from community members on their initial impressions of form based code and their ideas for how it may or may not be implemented in Lansing. There were twenty-five residents in attendance. We started the public meeting with an informal meet and greet. We set up six flipcharts around the room and encouraged people to write their answers to questions such as "What do you like about Lansing?'% "When I think of new development in Lansing, I think of...", "What would you improve in your area?". The goal of the public meeting was to introduce the concept of Form-Based Code and get the public's initial impressions. Public feedback was mixed. Some people "Terrible idea... I cannot build a house where I automatically associated Form Based want, and it has to look a certain way? ...1 don't want any part of form based code." Code with regulation and made it clear "1 think we should improve on what we have, and that they were not accepting of anything preserve agriculture and the small town." that could potentially damage agricultural "1 believe FBC is exactly what is needed. It would land or change the bucolic feel of the take what works and incorporate it throughout town. The residents made it clear that main areas of town and provide consistency." they like the relaxing, family-oriented, agricultural nature of the town. Even after the presentation, there was still some confusion about the definition of Form-Based Code and how it differs from traditional Euclidean zoning. Team leaders facilitated a group discussion to provide clarification allow people to express their views. There were some residents who l think it would help to preserve the were more optimistic and saw Form-Based Code as an rural sections of the town by restricting growth to the area where opportunity to incorporate their town's values into the 34 and 34B intersect." built environment. People identified the intersection of 34 and 34B as a potential target area for form based code. This public contribution was important as that intersection is part of the target area initially identified by our client. Please see Appendix for a full summary of public feedback collected at the town meeting. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 26 Form Based Code: Town of Lansing Example We have come up with an example of what Form-Based Code near the intersection of 34 and 34B could look like, based on characteristics of Rogues' Harbor. The community identified this historic inn and restaurant as one of the most-liked buildings in the Target Area. Form-Based Code functions on a rural to urban transect,with each zone varying by level of intensity of natural, built, and social components. Our first step was to identify which transect category the intersection of 34 and 34B would be categorized as; we identified the intersection as a T3 sub-urban zone. Using Rogues' Harbor as an example, characteristics of the primary walls, roof shape, openings and windows, attached elements and massing have been identified. Additional images of these characteristics are provided as reference. In addition to building characteristics, a diagram of potential setbacks and building heights design guidelines based on Rogues' Harbor, as well as standard T3 setbacks and building heights, has been created. The following pages show how the SmartCode can be adapted to serve this goal. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 27 TRANSECT CHARACTERISTICS ;7� '110 6 cR� r� •- T4 General T5 Urban T5.5 Urban Historic Zone Zone urban Zone Urban Zone Center Center Zone Transect Description J2 -T4) T-2 Rural Zone consists of General Character: Primary agricultural with sparsely settled lands in open or woodland,wetland,and cultivated states. These include scattered buildings woodland, agricultural land, and Building Placement: Variable setbacks grassland. Typical buildings are Frontage Type: Not Applicable farmhouses and agricultural Typical Building 14o-2 story for houses — buildings. Height: T-2 occurs on the north side of Type of Civic Space: Parks,Greenways the Town of Lansing T-2 RURAL General character: Lawns and landscaped T-3 Sub-Urban Zone consists of yards surrounding detached low-density residential areas, single-family houses, adjacent to higher zones that pedestrians occasionally have some mixed use. Building Placement: Large and variable front and Home occupations and side yard setbacks outbuildings are allowed. Frontage Type: Common lawn,porch& Planting is naturalistic and fence,naturalistic tree setbacks are relatively deep. planting Blocks may be large and the Typical Building 14o 2-story with some 3-5 �T-3 SUB-URBAN roads irregular to accommodate Height: story natural conditions Type of Civic Space: Parks Greenwa s T-4 General Urban Zone General character: Mix of houses,row houses, consists of a mixed use but and small multi-family e i® primarily residential urban fabric. buildings with scattered It may have a wide range of commercial activity, building types_single, Side yard, Balance between landscape E04.; and Row houses. Setbacks and and buildings,presence of e landscaping are variable. pedestrians Streets with curbs and sidewalks Building Placement: Shallow to medium front defining medium-sized blocks. and side yard setbacks T-4 GENERAL Frontage Type: Porches,fences,dooryards URBAN ZONE and storefronts Typical Building 1-to 3 story with a few Height: mixed use buildings Type of Civic Space: Squares,greens Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 28 Transect Regulation Summary J2 -T4) 1 T2 Rural Zone T3 l Sub-urban Zone Jrban Zone BLOCK SIZE Block Perimeter Not applicable 2,000 ft max 1,800 ft max LOT OCCUPATION Lot width Not applicable 40ft- 70 ft 18 ft- 60 ft Lot coverage Not applicable 60% max 70% max SETBACKS-PRINCIPAL BUILDING Front setback principal Not applicable 12 ft-30 ft 0 ft- 12 ft Front setback secondary Not applicable 16 ft min 0 ft- 12 ft Side setback Not applicable 5 ft min O ft or 6 ft total Rear setback Not applicable 20 ft min 3 ft min Frontage buildout Not applicable 50% min 70% min SETBACKS-OUTBUILDING Front setback Not applicable 20ft min + bldg 20 ft min + bldg setback setback Side setback Not applicable 3 ft or 6 ft total O ft min. or a ft Rear setback Not applicable 3ft min/ 15 ft 3 ft min / 15 ft from centerline of from centerline of rear alley rear alley PRIVATE FRONTAGES Common yard Not applicable Permitted Permitted Porch &fence Not applicable Permitted Permitted Terrace/ Li htwell Not applicable Not permitted Permitted Forecourt Not applicable Not permitted Permitted Stoop Not applicable Not permitted Permitted Sho front Not applicable Not permitted Permitted Parking lot Not applicable Not permitted Not permitted BUILDING CONFIGURATION Principal Building Not applicable 3 stories max 3 stories max Outbuilding Not a licable 2 stories max 2 stories max BUILDING FUNCTION Residentials Not applicable Restricted use Limited use Lodging Not applicable Restricted use Limited use Office Not applicable Restricted use Limited use Retail Not applicable Restricted use Limited use Industrial Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 29 Description of T3 FBC A. Description The majority of building uses in the T3 zone shall be residential use. Other functions such as lodging, office, and retail, or a mix of these functions may be allowed, with these other functions located on the ground floor, and dwellings on its upper floors. B. Access 1. The main entrance to each ground floor area shall be directly and face the street 2. Entrance to residential and/or non residential portions of the building above the ground floor shall be through a street level lobby or through a podium lobby accessible from the street 3. Interior circulation to each dwelling shall be through a corridor which may be single or double-loaded 4. Where an alley is present, parking shall be accessed through the alley 5. Where an alley is not present,parking shall be accessed by a driveway of 14' min width 6. On a corner lot without access to an alley, parking shall be accessed by a driveway of 14' min width C. Parking & Services 1. Required parking must be provided at grade. Garage, carport, or uncovered parking allowed 2. Dwellings may have indirect access to their parking stalls 3. Where an alley is present, services above ground equipment and trash container areas shall be located on the alley Transect Development Examples J2 —T4) + ' RESIDENTIAL OTHER FUNCTIONS -01 ,. 30 Sample Building Elements to be regulated (T3) Primary Walls ® Walls shall show no more than two materials/color along any building section. Single family detached t" housing are exempt ® Piers are a minimum of 6x6" if wood posts, and 18x18" if stone or stucco Roof Shape X Roof geometry must be pitched " ® Overhang shall be kept at a maximum of Job peel, 10" Openings ® Window openings should be oriented vertically, although ago windows may abut to ■ NE form horizontal L _ - opening Attached Elements ® Porches, chimneys, ,and trellises can A 4 enroach beyond primary exterior J�JiIIFI[[�r'' rl surface of buildings into their setback - ® Tapered, square columns Massing ® 3 or 2 storey with 1 story components such as porches or veranda ® 1 story simple house forms with 1 story components such as porches or veranda Based on Bellevue's Form Based Codes Article XXI -FBC Source: http://formbasedcodes.org/content/uploads/2014/08/Bellevue-Form-Based- Code Article-XXI FBC.pdf 0 o Building Placement Building . Build-to-Line(Distance from Property Line) Height Front 25' i Main Building 22' min.* Side Street 30' 3 Stories max. Building Facade at BTL -Ancillary Building 2 Stories max. Front 80% min Ground Floor Finish 6" max. above Side-Street 30% min Level sidewalk Setback(Minimum distance from Property Ground Floor Ceiling 12' min. clear Line) Upper Floors Ceiling 8' min. clear Q Side 0' *Measured from grade to cave or parapet base Rear Footprint Adjacent to other zone 5' Depth Ground Floor 40' min. Q Miscellaneous Lot Size All floors must have primary entrance along the Width 123' max @ front fa ade. Depth 100' max Loading docks, overhead doors, and other service Miscellaneous entries may not be located on street-facing Only one main building and one Ancillary facades. Building may be built on each lot. Any buildings wider than 50' must be designed to Street facades must be built to read as a series of buildings no wider than 50' BTL within 30' of street corners. each. Entire BTL must be defined by a building or a 2'-6"to 4'-6" high fence stucco or masonry wall. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 32 Process Conclusions If the Town of Lansing determines that it is in the best interest of the community to move forward with the implementation process of Form-Based Code, based upon the analysis conducted for this report and observations made at public meetings with residents of Lansing as well as community representatives, the following steps should be considered. 1. Identify a target area for implementation At the outset of this study,we were given a particular Target Area of focus within Lansing in which we to focus our inquiries. As such our report primarily addresses that particular area of Lansing. However, as a result of our study and findings,we believe that the selection of a target area for the implementation of Form-Based Code should be considered with increased public participation and input. Clear observations were made throughout the study that indicate residents of Lansing may have differing opinions as to which area in Lansing would benefit most from Form-Based Code. The implementation of Form-Based Code in one particular of the municipality location appeared from our study to be the most effective, as well as efficient, limiting factor of the implementation process. 2. Involve Public Public participation should be a key priority of the entire implementation process. Public involvement was a component of the municipalities identified as comparable case studies for Lansing and a notion mentioned at the public meetings held during this study. Based upon the understanding of Form-Based Code developed over the course of the project, it can be seen that the strength of the Form-Based Code adopted by a municipality greatly depends upon the extent to which the public of that municipality participates in the implementation process. 3. Identify Goals and Consider Alternatives Form-Based Code has proven useful in many contexts, but is not applicable or necessary in every context. Any preliminary public outreach should focus on identifying the Town's goals, and Town residents should consider whether Form-Based Code could achieve those goals. These goals may become more clear during the ongoing Comprehensive Plan process. The Town should then consider: whether the existing zoning code supports those goals;whether the existing code could be revised to support those goals; or whether a new zoning ordinance is needed to support those goals. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 33 4. Consider hiring a professional consultant or private firm Each of the relevant comparable municipalities that have adopted Form-Based Code, as identified in this report, has used professional consultants to assist the appropriate town officials and planning staff with the implementation process. There is no indication that Lansing would not benefit from contacting a professional consultant or private firm. Ideally, the prospective consultant will have experience with the implementation process of Form-Based Code and be familiar with Lansing's context in upstate New York. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 34 Appendix The Design Connect team posed the following questions posed to community members at the public meeting held November 12th, 2015. Community members answered questions in Section A on public posters; community members answered questions in Section B on individual handouts. Section A: 1. W>bat do you like about Lansing? • People and rural quality • Open spaces • Family farms • Small • No large, public capital projects • Views • Houses that have lawns 2. Wlbat areyour favorite places in Lansing? • Myers Park • My home • The library • Agricultural areas • Lake • Salt Pt., Myers, Belle Station 3. W>bicb places are in need of work? • Rogue's Harbor Intersection • Flooded ditches on Ridge Rd • Any big areas of paving • Roads leading into 34/34B • Triphammer/Asbury Rd intersection • Asbury Rd/E Shore Drive 4. W>bat wouldyou improve in your area? • Broadband access • Speed limit lowering • True openness to governance that listens to all • Traffic patterns • Nothing... • Drainage Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 35 • Deaden the road noise from the salt trucks and traffic (noise walls?) 5. 1Vhen I think of new development in Lansing I think of... • Urban sprawl • Ways to get between neighborhoods • Unplanned development could hurt town's character • Groan • McMansions- not a good thing • A real need for collaboration across segments • Unmanageable traffic &increased taxes • Lansing median income = $25,600 • Only 4400 households and 11000 people • Traffic noise,light pollution 6. Wlhen I think of open spaces and scenic views in Lansing I Mink... • Great Lansing feature, don't want to lose. • Views from main roads - sunset, lake • Places to get away • Ludlowville • Lake • Private farms • Salt point • "Secret"waterfalls Section B: 1. General Comments • Don't want to lose ability to have home on large lot without a lot of close neighbors • Location of new town center (there is none now). Highway traffic is a problem here. Town center could be moved a little, or traffic could be diverted 2. How might FBC work in Lansing? • New development areas, South Lansing, Lansingville area around fire station and N. Lansing • Not practically suitable for Lansing unless it could be used to preserve open space • I think it would help to preserve the rural sections of the town by restricting growth to the area where 34 and 34B intersect • I believe FBC is exactly what is needed. It would take what works and incorporate it throughout main areas of town and provide consistency Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 36 • Terrible idea... I cannot build a house where I want, and it has to look a certain way!?Who are you to tell me how my home/dwelling has to look? Being 20 years old, it is hard enough for my generation to get on its own (grow up), don't want ANY part of form based code. Plus, taxes will raise through the roof, not that they are high enough already • Mixed feelings - Not sure if it will work given scope of community • Yes, must explain to people that it is not encouraging in the agriculture areas of the town • The town center area would be a perfect place to apply FBC • FBC will be very hard to use in much detail, though it could be helpful to delineate new development and direct in-fill development 3. Ifyou bad,$5 million to do build anytbingyou'd like in the Town of Lansing ivbat wouldyou build? • South Lansing- sidewalks, bike lanes, trees all the way to Myers and school zone; mixed use- inland amass from town fields • Something for indoor arrangement in winter, museum/theater combination. Need Town Hall. • Sewer system that wouldn't burden the property owners too much starting in the area circles and expanding as funds become available. Funds from a small increase in property tax. • Town Center and sewer system to support larger businesses • Improve what we have. Make the old new and not just keep building and developing. 5 million can buy quite a lot of asphalt for our current roads. • Something to Increase Tax Base • A conference center or hotel on old cement plant • I wouldn't build anything since the huge unknown factor of the power plant. Possibly closing and the unaffordable tax rate that will turn this place into a ghost town. With close to 20% increase in taxes, I will sell my business and home and leave. • Town center area with mixed use similar to figure #5 Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 37 4. Please look at the pictures of various development types below, and consider bozo suitable each type is for the Town of Lansing. Lansing—OesignConnect Average Suiti3W Scores according to residents(I-least REFERENCE DEVELOPMENT suitable: 5-mast suitable) Please look at the pictures of various development types below,and consider how suitable each type is for the Town of Lansing. Larger copies of these images are available on the main tahle- r, . x, Figure 1 2.428 Figure 2 3.25 ULM Figure 3 2.428 Figure 1 Pre-Emption Rd.Geneva Figure 2 4'ihiletail Dr.hhaca Figure 3 Ballston Spa,Oowntmwn Area Figure 4 3.375 Figure 5 2.375 Figure 6 2 Figure 4Sindalr5treet,Soawatlim Figure 5 Saratoga Mixed Use Housing 01 Figure6 Beacon Main Street Figure 7 2.875 r ■ Figure 8 1.875 Figure 9 2_375 Figure 7 Saratoga Housing Figure,3 Grand Avenue Avhum Figure 9 Malla lousing Development Figure 10 2_571 Figure 11 2.571 Figure 12 2.125 Figure 10 Poets Landing,Oryden Figure 11 Saratoga Housing 01 Figure 12 Saratoga Mixed Use Housing @2 5. Additional comments from #4 above: • All except 3, 6 and 12 are striking for the absence of trees or other natural vegetation. They are uninspiring. Lansing in contrast has pieces that offer vistas, with hedge pieces. Triphammer Mall north of the mall. If these fields are to be developed, then aesthetic consider [illegible] in form based code become irrelevant. If a town center is to be created, it is a good model. 3/6: Area where East Shore Drive/34B intersect, 7/9: Triphammer Rd, 11/1: Along 34B North of Salmon Creek but South of Lansingville Rd; 4/2: Keep this where it is, east of the schools and Triphammer Road • 2-Cayuga Vista Drive, 10-Triphammer Road north of [Michauleous] I think we should improve on what we have, and preserve agriculture and the small Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 38 town. • None are really appropriate. Lansing generally has broad setbacks of cul-de-sac type neighborhoods • Can't really match Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 39 Bibliography "Article XVI: Downtown Malta Form-Based Code." Welcome to an Engaged Community. http://www.malta-town.org/index.aspx?NID=285. Barden, Susan. "Discussion with Senior Planner of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning and Economic Department." Interview by Sean McGee. October 13, 2015. Beacon, New York Comprehensive Plan and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. 17 December 2007. http://cityofbeacon.org/Pdf/Beacon_Comprehensive_Master_Plan.pdf. Connor, Bob. "Malta to Tweak New Zoning Code." Ballstown Journal, March 18, 2014. Connor, Bob. "Malta Seems Likely to Adopt Architectural Standards." Ballstown Journal,July 22, 2014. Erchak, Wyatt. "Town of Malta Taking Form." Ballstown Journal, February 13, 2013. Form-Based Codes:AStep-by-Step Guide for Communities. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Metropolitan Agency, 2013. Langdon, Phillip. "The Not-So-Secret Code." The American Planning Association - Special Section on New Urbanism,January (2006): 1-5. www.gatewayplanning.com/APA/The Not-So- Secret Code.pdf. Malta Downtown Charette Report. Malta, New York: Code Studio, 2012. Parolek, Daniel G., and Karen Parolek. Form-Based Codes.A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Perez,Tony. "Misconceptions About Form-Based Codes - Form-Based Codes Institute." Form-Based Codes Institute. October 20, 2014. Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell 40 http://formbasedcodes.org/articles/misconceptions-form-based-codes. Rangwala, Kaizer. "Why Design Guidelines, on Their Own, Don't Work - FBCI." Form- Based Codes Institute. December 22, 2010. http://formbasedcodes.org/articles/design- guidelines-dont-work. Revette, Marci. "Malta Adopts New Downtown Zoning." The Spotlight News, February 6, 2013. Rouse, David, and Nancy Zobyl. "Form-Based Development Codes." Zoning Practice May 2004, no. Five (2004): 1-8. https://www.planning.org/zoningpractice/2004/pdf/may.pdf. Russell,Joel. "Introduction to Form-Based Codes." Lecture,January 1, 2011. Russell,Joel. Consultant, Form-based code, Beacon, NY. Phone interview. Conducted by Stephen Wiley, 15 October 2015. Stowe, Boyd. "Beacon's New Form-Based Zoning For Central Main Street And The Linkage Zone". Beacon Streets Blog. http://www.beaconstreets.com/post/62050647967/beacons-new-form-based-zoning-for- central-main Town of Lansing-Design Connect Cornell