Downtown Study Committee: Design Guidelines presentation, Auburn, AL

8/4/2019 Downtown Study Committee: Design Guidelines presentation, Auburn, AL

1/43

DowntownStudy

Click to edit Master subtitle style

4/14/12

Downtown Study

Committee

City of Auburn

Photo courtesy ofwww.realestateinauburn.com

January19, 2010


2/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

August 14, 2009 AuburnChamber of Commerce

Commercial BusinessFocus Group report toMayor Ham

Identifies challenges andobstacles to development inthe Urban Core.

Challenges largely deal with

zoning regulations that were

CommitteeAppointme

nt

Initial

meetings

Stakeholderinterviews

RegulatoryReview andDiscussion

Wrap up


3/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

September 1, 2009 Firstof thirteen meetings

Introduction andorganizational purposes.

September 8, 2009

Benchmarking AnalysisSpecial Use Provisions

Stepback Requirements

CommitteeAppointment

Initial

meetings



Wrap up


4/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

Stakeholder Interviews

September 15 through

October 20 (six meetings)Downtown Merchants

Property Owners

Auburn University

Former Chair of the UrbanCore Task Force (2006)

Chamber of Commerce


Initial

meetings

Stakeholder

interviews


Wrap up


5/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

General Points fromstakeholders

Land is very expensive indowntown while landfurther out is inexpensive

Few, if any, incentives toupgrade existingdowntown sites or re-

develop


Initial

meetings

Stakeholder

interviews


Wrap up


6/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

Regulatory Review andDiscussion

November 3 throughDecember 8, 2009 (fourmeetings)

Discussed issues withincontext of feedback fromstakeholders

Topics included


Initial

meetings



Wrap up


7/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

Timeline

January 7, 2010

Review of final

recommendations for CityCouncil consideration on

January 19, 2010.


Initial

meetings



Wrap up


8/43

DowntownStudy

4/14/12

UC vs. CEOD

Urban Core(UC) is a base

zoningclassification

A significant

portion of theUC zone hasa CollegeEdge Overlay

(CEOD) with


9/43

D

owntownStudy

4/14/12

CEOD

On both sidesof the street

NorthCollege St.between Rail

line and theUniversity

Magnolia

Avenuebetween


10/43

D

owntownStudy

4/14/12

Stepback in CEOD Zone

Existing Regulation

15 foot stepback

after the first 24to 36 in heightlimitedto two buildingfloors.


11/43

D

owntownStudy

4/14/12

Stepback in CEOD Zone

Proposed Regulation:

Stepback not mandatory in the

CEOD.Provide incentives* to encourage

stepback

*Potential incentives can be researched and

explored during the Planning Commissionsfurther review of these ro osals in their work


12/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Special Use Provisions

Existing Regulation

Third level

through fifthlevel uses mustbe

ResidentialOffice, or

Commercial

(hotel and

Hotel

Hotel

Hotel


13/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


Proposed Regulation

Third level through

fifth level uses arerequired to be

Commercial and

entertainmentOffice, or

Residential

Commercial

Commercial

Commercial


14/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


Effect of Proposed Change

Maintains the intent of the original

guidelinesAllows for a greater variety of uses

at levels 3 through 5 (including

restaurants)Would also necessitate higher floor

to ceiling heights at levels 3

through 5 to accommodate the


15/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Building Height

ExistingRegulation

Buildingheight islimited to 66 ft

66

feet


16/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Building Height

Proposed Regulation

Increase allowable height in the

UC/CEOD to 75 feetPurpose: to accommodate potential

non-residential uses at levels 3

through 5The Committee felt that limiting

height was more important than a

set number of floors

Buildingscan havethe samenumber of

stories, yetSource:http://www.stradaatcoconutcreek.com


17/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Floor Area Ratio

What is it?

Ratio of the Building area to the

area of the parcel. FAR = BuildingArea Parcel area

Illustration of aFAR of 1.0

Source:http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/Portals/0/Policy/curriculum/images/ch_far.gif


18/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Floor Area Ratio

Existing Regulation

Finished basements are considered part of FARcalculation (this is applied city-wide)

Effect: buildings with finished basements arelimited regarding height and lot coverage


19/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Floor Area Ratio

Proposed Regulation

Allow finished basement area not

to count against the allowable FAR(apply city-wide)

This would allow for basement level

uses to be established downtownwhile also resolving an on-goingissue in performance residentialsingle-family subdivisions.


20/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Floor Area Ratio

Existing Regulation

FAR is limited to 5.0


21/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Floor Area Ratio

Proposal

Review existing FAR requirement

within the context of the ensuingPlanning Commission work sessionprocess

Why?FAR and height limits are both

necessary as effective

determinants of height

er e a


22/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

er e aConditional Uses

in the CEOD/UCExisting RegulationThe land use table in the zoning

ordinance has two conditional useclassifications

C is a standard conditional use

C~ is a permitted use if in a buildingestablished prior to February 20, 2007,otherwise a standard conditional use

er e a


23/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


in the CEOD/UCProposalC~ uses should be permitted by

right.

Why?

Provides greater symmetrybetween the manner in which usesare treated downtown and the rest

of the City.

er e a


24/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


in the CEOD/UCProposalMaintain requirement that all

mixed-use projects requiremaster development plan review bythe Planning Commission (and CityCouncil, if conditional use approvalis being requested).

Why?

To provide adequate assurance of


25/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

What is Mixed Use?

The City Zoning code:

A combination of residentialand non-residential uses on asingle property or land parcel,

involving two (2) or more usesof different land use categoriesthat may or may not be located in asingle structure . . . A single sitema include conti uous ro erties.

Source: http://www.cityofholladay.com

er e a


26/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


in the CEOD/UCLoungesThe Committee

also consideredthe prospect offurtherregulatinglounge uses interms ofestablishing

distance

http://www.auhcc.com


27/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Balconies

Existing Regulation

Balconies may extend 4 ft beyond

the primary faade, within the 15foot stepback

Setback at least 11 ft from right-of-

wayNo more than 12 ft in width

10 ft separation between balconies


28/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Balconies

Proposal

Balconies may be

appropriate to belocated within theright-of-way (overthe public sidewalk)

Review furtherthrough thePlanningCommission work


29/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Balconies

Special consideration

The code language needed to

facilitate this will need to be placednot only in the Zoning Ordinance,but the City Code of Ordinances aswell, due to the prospective use ofright-of-way.


30/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Parking

Existing Regulation

Residential uses

in CEOD shallprovide 1.5parking spaces perunit.

Residential uses inthe UC shallprovide one (1)

arkin s ace er


31/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Parking

Proposed Regulation

Make minor modifications to the on-site parking requirement. Requiredparking in the Urban Core & CEOD shallbe provided either:

On-Site;

Within one thousand (1,000 feet)of the site through an arrangement

with the property owner or lessee (a*This option will only be available if the City Council chooses to establish a parkingfund or a fee-in-lieu of parking .


32/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Parking

Why?

The dense nature of the UrbanCore and the small and often oddshaped parcels make it very

difficult for a property owner toredevelop and provide on-siteparking.

The Committee felt it was


33/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Parking Lot Screening

Existing Regulation

No parking will be allowed tobe visible from the street atany level. At grade level adjacent

to the ROW, parking must bescreened with a building. In caseswhere the parking cant bescreened by a building of the

ermitted use the arkin must be


34/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


Proposed Regulation

Allow parking to bevisible from thestreet withappropriate bufferswith landscaping

Clarify existingrequirements thatparking garagesmust have an

Fencing at First Baptist ChurchParking Lot


35/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12


Why?

Parking is necessary in the Urban

Core, but it must be accessible,visible, safe, and properly screenedwith fencing and landscaping.

Source:http://www.mankato

-

mn.gov


36/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Signs

Background

Standards of the

UCTF were notadopted until April2007

The most recentoverhaul of thesign ordinance tookplace betweenSe tember 2007


37/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Signs

Existing Regulations

Sign area is primarily a function of

building width and not so muchheight.

Maximum of 32 sq ft per building

No consideration for buildings withmultiple faades or entrances

One blade sign may be provided in

addition to building mounted


38/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Signs

Proposal

Sign area calculations to be

respective to each building faadeand to building height

Minimum sign area allowance for

extraordinarily narrow buildingsBlade signs for any wall that has an

entrance

Permit sandwich board signs


39/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Nonconformities

Existing Regulation

Article VII in the Zoning Ordinance

Current regulations can presentserious challenges and potentiallyundesirable results in certainscenarios.

Particularly challenging is therequirement that any expansion of anexisting non-conformity requires

compliance with all current regulations.


40/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Nonconformities

Proposal

Review existing regulations

governing non-conformitiesMay be merit in examining

distinctions between detrimental

and benign nonconformities.This issue is a project, in and of

itself, and may need to be reviewed

separately.


41/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Glazing

Proposal

Evaluate requirements with the

Planning Commission work sessionprocess.

Why?

Staff has encountered instanceswhere the application of glazing

requirements has not always


42/43

D

owntownStu

dy

4/14/12

Next Steps

Review of finalrecommendationsfor City Councilconsideration on

January 19, 2010.

PlanningCommission worksessions

Staff will draftchan es to Zonin

Source: http://www.engagecommunitychurch.com


43/43

D

owntownStu

dy

Questions?

Source:

Downtown Study Committee: Design Guidelines presentation, Auburn, AL

Documents

Transcript of Downtown Study Committee: Design Guidelines presentation, Auburn, AL