HomeMy WebLinkAboutInfill Policy and Post Platting issues Bus Tour and Discussion for potentail Code amendments
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Infill policy and post platting issues bus tour of the community with
follow up discussion and direction to Staff regarding potential municipal
code amendments
MEETING DATE: September 23, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Legislative
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission direct staff on proceeding forward with
execution of Commission direction on Bozeman Municipal Code revisions to facilitate infill
development.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having reviewed the packet materials, considered public comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby direct Staff to prepare an infill policy for consideration by the Commission and to undertake the identified
immediate action amendments to the Bozeman Municipal Code.”
BACKGROUND: There have been many successful infill projects in the past twenty years in Bozeman. The
thriving Downtown, high value homes within the historic districts, and new construction within
previously developed commercial areas are evidence of the commitment of private property
owners and the City to investment in the existing developed areas of the community.
Maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure has been beneficial to both the City and private property owners.
Existing City policy/practices have long advocated for infill development and reuse. For
example, the historic preservation program has encouraged the rehabilitation and reuse of
existing structures in the core of the city resulting in a cornerstone of our local economy: a vital, healthy, economically viable downtown. Concurrently, Urban Renewal Districts have each been
looking at policies to encourage infill development. These bifurcated efforts to encourage infill
were noted by the City Commission and as a result they directed staff to develop a policy
statement and identify follow up actions to further support infill development.
In order to facilitate discussion on this subject, a tour of infill sites has been organized. A map of
the route and a set of data sheets describing each location, challenges faced, issues illustrated,
and a small map have been provided. Please see the first attachment to this memo. Staff will
accompany the Commission on the tour to give additional information and answer questions.
165
After the tour is completed the Commission will return to City Hall and discuss possible actions
as outlined under the Unresolved Issues section of this memo.
To date staff has met with property owners, stakeholder groups and development professionals to identify priority issues, best practices, and Code elements to bring before the Commission for
consideration. These recommendations are provided as an attachment to this memo, please see
the second attachment.
Terms: In preparing this memo Staff utilized the following general description of infill along with some illustrative examples of circumstances in which infill would occur. These are working
descriptions and subject to change as the infill policy develops.
Generalized definition: Infill is the intensification of development or redevelopment of a
site which was previously developed for urban use; or the initial development of vacant property located within or wholly surrounded by developed property.
Infill Circumstances
1) Provision of infrastructure to previously underserved areas within the outermost
boundaries of the City without an immediate increase in intensity or change in type of development. Example: Western Drive, see attachment 1, map 10.
2) Reinvestment in existing properties and buildings to enhance their functionality and to
increase their value and improve their appearance while not materially increasing the
intensity of use. Example: Fresco Cafe, see attachment 1, map 2.
3) Significant intensification of use, often including new building construction, on sites previously developed but which are substantially underutilized within the limitations of
development standards. Example: Brownfields like Idaho Pole, redevelopment like
Northside PUD on Rouse Ave., or intensification like the Etha Hotel.
4) Urban undeveloped land, proportionately small, in areas developed for at least 25
years and located within neighborhoods. Example: the field between the Fairgrounds and N. Fifth Avenue; or the lot at West Babcock and Meagher Avenue, see attachment 1, map
11 .
Guiding principles: The following principles have guided the infill discussion:
1) If the issue is generally applicable throughout the community it should be addressed generally and not limited to a specific subarea of the community.
2) All citizens of the community should receive equivalent levels of services.
3) Greenfield development often has fewer constraints than redevelopment/infill with its
myriad of existing conditions which difference justifies a difference in approach to the
two situations.
4) Consistency of review is critical.
5) Infill development provides cost efficiencies by reusing existing infrastructure to service
new development.
6) It is beneficial for the entire community to prevent decay and abandoned/neglected areas
of the community.
ISSUE:
166
There are many combinations of circumstances that are considered infill, as noted above;
however, infill policy generally addresses issues of compatibility, density, and conforming to
adopted code standards.
Best practice research shows that communities have tailored their approaches to these
circumstances to match their preferences. Many communities take a very proactive approach
such as aiding with land assembly, pursuing funding for contaminated site cleanup, or directly
providing funding for projects. Their ordinances and programs frequently implement or
compliment state programs which authorize or fund such activities. Other communities focus on compatibility, specifically issues of massing and scale with the existing built environment.
Compatibility: A perception of conflict between existing and proposed development generates
opposition and often delays infill development. The City has adopted two definitions, as part of
the municipal code, to help guide discussions about compatible development, as shown below:
Sec. 38.42.670. Compatible development.
The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with
adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's
adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity;
materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with
existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the
area, motorized and nonmotorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible
development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.
Sec. 38.42.680. Compatible land use.
A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects
exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light and the
presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.
Other factors also influence the community’s acceptance of infill development. One factor is the
perceived desirability of the existing conditions. If people are generally content with the present status they are more likely to resist changes than if they see a need for investment and
development. The rate at which change occurs is also an influence on whether additional
development is perceived as desirable. If small changes occur with regularity it is more likely to
be perceived as normal than if a large change occurs infrequently. Some communities use
regulatory techniques to enable changes to occur, but constrain the scope of any individual change to create opportunity for infill without creating periods of drastic change. An example of
an existing standard in Bozeman’s entryway corridor standards is attached.
Density: Communities evolve demographically and structurally. In 1923, the average number
of people who lived in a Bozeman home (5.74) was more than double what it is today (2.46). As a result, for the same number of people in 2013 twice as many homes are needed in 2013 as were
needed in 1930. When people discuss density they are often using the term as a proxy for the
number of homes per acre. As noted above, counting homes doesn’t necessarily make a good
measure of occupants and related service needs. Adding additional homes, like accessory
dwelling units (ADU), within an existing neighborhood adds people and homes to take advantage of existing infrastructure. However, the scale and character of the additional units
make a big difference in how they are perceived. An ADU created on a lot as a ground level
167
addition, or as a two story garage have very different effects on the neighborhood. This tour will
not address ADUs; however, they are a subject worthy of their own specific consideration.
Conformance to adopted codes: Infill development often occurs on sites which have limited flexibility of design due to unusual lot configurations, existing structures on or off-site, or site
contamination. With older buildings on existing sites there are frequently elements which do not
conform to current standards. Generally, non-conformities are undesirable under the theory that
the existing standard was adopted because it gave a superior outcome. Non-conformities have
been a longstanding challenge for zoning and building code administrators. A strict policy for removal of non-conforming uses/structures can act to inhibit reinvestment in existing sites
leading to poor appearance and safety conditions. A relaxed policy allowing for the continuation
may also discouragement redevelopment of a site.
Finding a balance of what triggers compliance with new standards such as the building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), various municipal code provisions is often nuanced and
tied to the goals of the community overall. Identifying the trigger points for what types of
improvements are required is an essential part of the regulatory structure to support infill.
ACTION: Staff is asking the Commission to provide direction on infill policy and to consider the code
amendments noted in attachment 2.
1) Does the Commission wish to adopt a formal infill policy similar to the example policy from
Billings, MT? 2) Does the Commission accept the working definition and sub-descriptions of infill
circumstances as an organizing principle for implementation work?
3) Does the Commission wish to give direction for initial implementation actions different from
those identified by staff?
4) Is the Commission willing to support funding for contracted services necessary for the tasks recommended by Staff for future budget submittals?
5) Does the Commission accept the premise of addressing issues of general concern through
generally applicable standards or programs?
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct preparation of a formal infill policy.
2) Direct drafting of amendments to the municipal code or other implementing actions.
3) Other actions as directed by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Balancing staff availability with funding availability has resulted in a
recommendation that staff undertake some of the text amendments and contract consultants for a
portion of the work. Upon receiving direction from the Commission, staff will solicit cost estimates. Depending on the response to those solicitations the Staff will include requests in the
next budget cycle.
Attachments:
1. Tour map and site descriptions, 2. Amendments for Consideration 3. City of Billings infill development policy 4. Existing regulatory and financial support for infill development
5. Summary of policy issues
6. Infill resources references
168
7. Infill Development paper by Paul Beyer 8. Excerpt pages from design guidelines,
9. Focus Group agenda
10. Summary comments from focus groups,
Report compiled on: September 16, 2013
169
INFILL SITE TOUR HANDBOOK
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013
170
Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Data Sheet List – Not all sites will be explored in detail during the tour due to time
constraints. The information is provided to help facilitate understanding of the sites which are
visited, and to provide additional information to aid in understanding the issues relating to infill. The locations marked with an asterisk are infill related stops on the tour. Locations marked with two asterisks are focused on post-subdivision platting issues. The sequence follows the order in
which the sites will be seen on the tour.
1. *City Hall (Circumstance 2)
2. Fresco Café (next to City Hall – Circumstance 2)
3. *South Wallace Avenue –
4. Small house @ 530 E Curtis (Circumstance 3),
5. Olive and Wallace industrial rehabilitation (Circumstance 2),
6. Seed Company/GYC (Circumstance 2),
7. Cider House (Circumstance 3) – Shows residential infill and scale issues, contamination clean up, commercial infill with redevelopment, land assembly with boundary locations
conflicts
8. *102 N. Broadway (Circumstance 4)
9. *Northside PUD (Circumstance 3) [option for exclusion]
10. *Western Drive (Circumstance 1)
11. *Babcock and Meagher (Circumstance 4)
12. **Oak Springs Subdivision – Post Platting stop 1
13. **Meadow Creek – Post Platting stop 2
14. *South Town Square – (Circumstance 3)
171
Page 3 of 17
Site #1 – City Hall
Description: (Circumstance 2 - Reinvestment) – The current City Hall was constructed as the
Bozeman Public Library in 1981. The building was repurposed to the City’s
primary administration building in 2008. Challenges for this infill site include the existing non-conforming building
setbacks along the creek. The parking interaction with the adjacent school
illustrates the challenges of maintaining buildings within a congested area with
limited parking resources. During the afternoon pick up times many people park in the City Hall parking lot who are going to the school thereby limiting access to the City Hall functions. However, often the highest use times for City Hall are in
the evenings for public hearings. That evening time period may see competition
for parking in the lot by users of the Fresco Café which recently was approved to
occupy an adjacent building. City Hall was remodeled as a LEED silver building which requires a focus on
energy conservation. As part of that effort solar panels were added to the roof.
This was readily achieved since the building has a flat roof. There can be a
tension with infill projects in regards to energy efficiency. It saves energy to reuse existing structures since the energy costs to demolish and dispose of an existing building are avoided and the energy embedded in the existing building is
preserved. However, older buildings are often constructed in a way which makes
them difficult to retrofit to current energy efficiency standards. Building heating
and cooling is one of the greatest sectors of energy consumption. Review process: The repurposing of the library to City Hall was processed as a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
172
Page 4 of 17
Site #2 – Fresco Cafe
Description: (Circumstance 2 – Reinvestment) – This site is very physically limited with
Bozeman Creek as a barrier on the west, multiple buildings on the east and public
right-of-ways on the north and south. The site has no on-site parking. The B-3 district does not require any parking for the first 3,000 square feet of a building. This means that all parking for the newly approved restaurant must come from
off-site. This may place pressure on adjacent users like City Hall and Hawthorne
school if they are having evening events.
The immediate adjacency to the Bozeman Creek posed a challenge for capturing and property pre-treating stormwater runoff as there was very little room on the
site. The use as a restaurant requires a second exit to the north for emergency
exiting as required by the building code. The northern building wall is
immediately adjacent to an alley and had no safe ADA compliant exit. The addition of the exit required relocation of dumpsters which adjacent landowners had used for an extended time and relocation of utility lines. This caused some
opposition from adjacent owners.
The Fresco Café was processed as a conditional use permit because of the request for on-site alcohol service.
173
Page 5 of 17
Sites 3-7 South Wallace Avenue Common Issues
There are four locations along South Wallace Avenue which are included on the infill tour. The
four sites share several common elements. The entire area has had varying levels of asbestos
contamination from shipping of raw asbestos in the 1940’s from the Milwaukee Road railroad
depot located where the present public library now is constructed. The City undertook the cleanup for the library site and adjacent roadways. Other projects as far away as the TireRama and Heebs grocery store were found to also have become contaminated which created delay and
additional expense. The City expended over 1.5 million dollars and 3 months construction time
in the clean up.The City was reimbursed for a large portion of this expense but it required much
additional staff time to work with the state to enable the reimbursement from the state for eligible cleanup costs. This illustrates the challenges contamination of a site can add to a project. Even projects like TireRama on Main Street which were not expected to be affected found themselves
caught up in the issue.
The area has also had a series of planning and zoning changes. The area was developed for industrial uses along the railroad lines. Much of the area was planned for residential uses beginning in the 1980’s and zoned accordingly even though that did not match the constructed
buildings and uses. In 2009, the long range planning for the area was changed to better match the
actual uses although the zoning map remained unchanged and showed residential districts.
Recent map amendments initiated by the landowners have changed the zoning map to support redevelopment of existing buildings. The City could have initiated those changes and simplified the process for the landowners and saved them money.
174
Page 6 of 17
Site #4 – 530 E. Curtiss Street
Description: (Circumstance 3 – Significant Intensification ) The site has been developed for
over 100 years for residential purposes. The site was reconfigured with a
subdivision exemption to establish two lots for two separate single household residences. The subdivision exemption provided an expedited way to configure the property through an administrative review process. Lot consolidation and
reconfiguration is a common need with redevelopment of existing areas that were
platted before 1950. The 2nd lot was smaller than normally allowed and was
permitted through the certificate of appropriateness with a deviation. This process allowed verification of the 2nd home being of an appropriate size and scale to the site. The new home is 780 square feet of living space with a small accessory
building. A larger structure would have been out of scale and created conflicts
with adjacent properties.
The means to ensure that projects are in scale with surrounding projects is one of the more challenging aspects of infill development. Zoning establishes a series of
dimensional standards and uses. The expectation is that if these standards are
complied with then uses are compatible. However, infill projects are often
occurring on odd shapes or sizes of property. Knowing the proposed development for the site enables an accurate review of compatibility and whether additional flexibility is appropriate. The importance of standards which properly address
scale and mass is illustrated by the various discussions about and the
modifications to standards for accessory dwelling units.
The project was reviewed as a certificate of appropriateness with a deviation followed by a subdivision exemption.
175
Page 7 of 17
Site #5 – 200 South Wallace Avenue, Olive and Wallace project
Description: (Circumstance 2&3 - Reinvestment and Significant Intensification), The site has
been used for a variety of uses over time and the building was divided into several
different portions. A new rehabilitation was recently approved. A short video about the upcoming project is included with these packet materials. Before the project was purchased by the current owner an issue regarding the property
boundary had to be resolved.
The building, like many industrial and older buildings, was constructed to what was thought to be the property line. This can lead to complications when it becomes time to perform maintenance on the building. Also, what is believed to
be a property line frequently isn’t. People will rely on fences or hedges which
may or may not be properly located. The building on this site had been built a few
feet over the property line onto land owned by the Library. The City and Library were willing to change the property line to correct the error
but it required an extensive public process to authorize the land transfer. Not all
adjacent owners are so willing to cooperate and will attempt to prevent a project
or significantly profit from the misfortune of the incorrect structure placement. These incorrect boundaries can also create significant conflicts when a survey has not been completed but one or more parties believe property lines are not where
they appear to be.
The project was processed as a site plan with certificate of appropriateness. The property owners had previously amended the zoning map to B-3. Otherwise the project would have required several exceptions to municipal code standards. The
project is demolishing parts of the building to provide for outdoor seating areas
and parking which was needed with the
conversion to new non-industrial uses. The project also required cleanup of asbestos from the site.
176
Page 8 of 17
Site #6 – 215 South Wallace Avenue, Greater Yellowstone Coalition/Seed
Company
Description: (Circumstance 2&3 – Reinvestment and Significant Intensification), The site was
originally developed in 1920 as the Gallatin Valley Seed Company. It was one of
the first substantial rehabilitations of old industrial uses to commercial uses along
the South Wallace Avenue. The old seed company, the taller building, was converted to a variety of offices and similar uses in the early-mid 1990’s. Because
the property was planned and zoned for residential purposes at that time it
required a conditional use permit to convert from one non-conforming use to
another non-conforming use. The residential standards also posed challenges for
issues such as signage; which was very limited in area.
The Greater Yellowstone Coalition wished to separate their building (the old
single-story warehouse section) from the seed company building and develop it as
a free standing office in 2009. This was a substantial intensification of the use of
the site. The growth policy designation for the site had by this time changed to a community core designation which supported such a change but the zoning had
not yet been changed. Therefore, a conditional use permit was required which
required public hearing and deviations. Had the zoning which is now in place (B-
3) been in place at that time the project would have been an administratively
approved site plan and likely would not have required any deviations for the project to be constructed.
The parking available to the site is limited and the more intensive use has created
some impacts to adjacent properties.
The project required multiple conditional use permits and deviations.
177
Page 9 of 17
Site #7 – Cider House
Description: (Circumstance 3 – Significant Intensification) This site has been developed for
residential uses for many decades. The site is zoned as B-3 so the existing single
household residence is non-conforming. The original proposal was to convert an
existing detached residential garage into a commercial hard cider manufacturing facility. Manufacturing is not an allowed use within the B-3 zoning district.
Staff discussed several options with the owner and determined that the site had
adequate size to create an on-site restaurant/bar to which the manufacturing would
become accessory. This required additional area of construction so the City’s regulations encouraged a more intensive development on the site. Due to the B-3 district having an exemption for the first 3,000 square feet of commercial space
from parking requirements and the small size of the project, no parking was
required. Without this parking exemption the project would not have been
possible. The owners reside in the on-site home. There were no off-site improvements
required other than repair to the adjacent sidewalk which was in poor condition.
The project was reviewed as a conditional use permit because of the on-premise
consumption of alcohol. A certificate of appropriateness was required for the
addition to the accessory building and the changes to the site landscaping.
178
Page 10 of 17
Site #8 - 102 N. Broadway Avenue
Description: (Circumstance 4 – Urban Undeveloped Land) The site is an unusual triangular
parcel bounded by Broadway Avenue, a vacant section of right of way for Lamme
Street, and a rail spur. The site configuration poses a substantial challenge to find enough buildable area for a financially viable building. The site has a 20 foot setback from Broadway and a three foot setback from the other sides. It is
common that oddly shaped or otherwise challenging sites to be left undeveloped
well after other properties in the area have been utilized.
The intersection of Broadway and Main is currently not at an acceptable level of service. Another project has agreed to a condition to signalize the intersection.
The municipal code has several ways to exempt an infill project from having to
address intersection problems. Sometimes those can be addressed
administratively. In this case Commission action was required. The project was reviewed as a site plan with two variances. One variance is for
the front yard setback and the other for not requiring intersections improvements.
179
Page 11 of 17
Site #9 – Northside PUD, 1263 North Rouse Avenue
Description: (Circumstance 3 – Significant Intensificaton)- The site was a host to a variety of
industrial uses including metal storage and fabrication, a granary, a hardware
store, and other uses. The majority of uses had stopped operation before the site was redeveloped. The project was done as a planned unit development to coordinate redevelopment and common spaces across several users. New uses
include retail, restaurants, and gymnastics facilities.
There were several areas with non-conforming setbacks. During the redevelopment process the State acquired additional right of way for Rouse Avenue which required some adjustments. The redevelopment of the buildings
required substantial reconfiguration of existing buildings and addition of new
building spaces to existing structures. The PUD provided opportunities for
additional uses not normally allowed within the M-1 zone. The intersection of Oak Street and Rouse Avenue was required to be signalized
before the project could be occupied. The City funded the great majority of the
signalization costs through impact fees. The design of the signal was changed
several times by MDT which delayed the installation and increased the cost. The project was reviewed as a planned unit development with multiple relaxations
from the municipal code.
180
Page 12 of 17
Site #10 – Western Drive
Description: (Circumstance 1 – Provision of Infrastructure) – The Farwestern Subdivision was
platted in 1958. It was developed with individual on-site septic systems and wells.
At that time the area was approximately ¾ of a mile outside of city limits. It is now over two miles within the City’s boundaries. The subdivision has lots of 0.25 and 0.33 acres in size. This range of lot sizes is substantially less than the
minimum size now considered necessary for healthy environments.
The municipal water and sewer services exist along Babcock Street and Durston Road and at various locations along the western and eastern edges. Access to municipal services to lots on the interior of the area require extensions of over ½
mile of water and sewer mains at substantial expense. This is unlike many other
areas along Babcock Street and Durston Road where connection to services
simply requires connection to the adjacent pipes. Extensions of such magnitude are beyond the ability of individual property owners.
There is little opportunity for further development of the property to generate
funds to pay for pipe extensions. The City has the ability to form SIDs or pursue
grants to help spread costs and lessen the burden on individual property owners. The City’s approach to annexation has been to wait for property owners to approach the City. In circumstances such as Western Drive that may not be a
functional approach. Only the cooperation of the entire area would have enough
financial capacity to approach the issue privately which would be extremely hard
to coordinate. The timing of when properties would be annexed and how soon connections to service may be required must be carefully considered.
If the City initiated the annexation it could follow several approaches including
Parts 7-2-43 and 7-2-45 MCA. This would relieve the property owners of the
expense of preparing application forms and application fees. An amendment to the zoning map would be needed in conjunction with annexation. A well
considered provision of services plan would be
needed since the typical annexation agreement
approach would not be available. This would require some differences in the approach to funding the needed infrastructure for services.
There are several similarly situated areas
within the City.
181
Page 13 of 17
Site #11 – Babcock and Meagher
Description: (Circumstance 4 – Urban Undeveloped Land) – The site was originally platted as
part of the Valley Unit Subdivision in the 1980’s. The site has not previously been
developed. Several different informal ideas have been considered over the years. A proposal for a subdivision will soon be seen by the City Commission.
There are no physical or legal restrictions on the property which prevented its
development. The owners have not seriously pursued development. Utilities are
readily available and the zoning allows flexibility in the uses allowed on the site. Similar to this site, there are several large tracts within Bozeman where the
owners have chosen not to develop. They are large enough that development
could readily comply with the standards of the municipal code. Sometimes these
tracts move into the development process when ownership changes through estate transfers; sometimes they have simply been held as investments and will develop when the owners think it will be most profitable.
These sites are infill according to the draft definition but don’t have the same
limitations that most infill sites do. The greatest challenge for these sites may be neighbor expectations if they are perceived as open space due to their long undeveloped state.
A subdivision review is underway for this site. The site could also have readily
been developed through a site plan process. The project substantially benefited from the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland. The site is across the street from Hyalite Elementary and the Asheim Fields. Without
the use of cash-in-lieu the site development
would have been constrained.
182
Page 14 of 17
Sites 12-13 Post Platting for Subdivisions Common Issues
The Staff has been evaluating what lessons could be learned from the last large
growth period that may help the City better handle the next growth period that is
upon us. Several changes in the municipal code have already been put into place
such as enhanced provisions to address phasing of both zoning and subdivision
development. Other changes are larger policy issues that need discussion with the
Commission. These are summarized in the issues and questions section of the
packet.
The Staff believes the core procedures in place for the initial review of
development are sound. Opportunities for improvement are being identified and
changes implemented at administrative levels such as electronic plan review and
greater focus on customer service. Staff has also identified some opportunities for
improvement that will require some code revisions.
Several big picture issues have been identified. To help the Commission be
familiar with how these things play out in new developments Staff has identified
two sample developments for this tour. A summary description of each follows.
Big picture questions:
• The proper role of property owners associations in the development process
and maintenance of infrastructure.
• What better approaches exist to ensure more even and equitable delivery of
services.
• Adequate tracking and enforcement installation of deferred improvements.
• Revised statutory authority to limit what improvements may be deferred.
• Revised cash-in-lieu of park land approaches and utilization.
183
Page 15 of 17
Site #12 – Oak Springs Subdivision
Description: (Post Platting stop 1) This subdivision received final plat approval for its first
phase in May 2006. The fourth and final phase received final plat approval in
October 2007. The project included a variety of housing types and lot layouts. A large park, approximately 10 acres, was platted. The development of the park was phased along with the subdivision although the land was set aside with the first
phase. The location of the park was coordinated with an adjacent subdivision
design to improve the location and functional configuration of the park. The
project made improvements to Durston Road and Oak Street. The eastern end of the park was improved with the first phase and is in good
condition. The central and western sections have perimeter streets and some
irrigation work installed but the park improvements have not been completed. The
size of the park enables it to be a community park serving a large fraction of the community instead of just one subdivision. The park fronts Ferguson Avenue which gives it good visibility and access. This is a good example of locking in
parks configurations for multiphase projects early.
The initial developer, like many, suffered during the 2007-2010 recession and the lender received possession of much of the property. During this period the financial guarantee securing the park improvements also lapsed although the
improvement agreement still exists. The park was supposed to be maintained by
the home owners association (HOA) until the City establishes a park maintenance
district. The HOA is just forming at this time and is interested in seeing the park improvements completed. They have contacted the Parks department to begin discussions on how to move that forward. This raises the question of the equity
and ability of a single HOA maintaining a facility that serves the larger
community.
Multi-phase subdivision
184
Page 16 of 17
Site #13 – Meadow Creek Subdivision
Description: (Post Platting stop II) This project was a multiphase subdivision. The overall
subdivision was approved in November 2005. The park and open space areas
were designed as a coordinated entity and they were an important part of the overall design. The project was located a considerable distance from municipal utilities. Due to the utility design issues the furthest portion of the subdivision was
platted first and required very large investments.
During the recession, the developer lost control of the subdivision to his creditors, including utility contractors. The property was broken up to give assets to creditors. No overall park easement had been required with the first phase.
Consequently, areas originally intended for parks are now in ownership of others.
This has complicated moving forward with the original park design as additional
phases of the subdivision are brought forward by new owners. The City has limited ability to require one owner to dedicate land for parks to benefit another landowner even though the original plan called for certain property to be a park.
The parks, lighting, and other common spaces were to be maintained by the home
owners association. With the break up in ownership questions as to control of the HOA, consistency of participation, equitable responsibility, and what items will ultimately be under control of the HOA have arisen. The HOA does not appear to
be active and maintenance has been unreliable. New owners and creditors who
took over sections of the property are making some efforts to correct outstanding
deficiencies like the medians in S. 27th Avenue. The complicated legal issues with the property make resolution more difficult. The project illustrates the challenges the City may face implementing a storm water utility and parks
maintenance district. It also illustrates the challenges of coordinating multi-phase
projects and relying upon property owners associations for completion of and
maintenance of infrastructure. The subdivision was processed in several
phases. Some have been completed through the
final plat step. Several phases timed out when
the original developer lost control of the project. Some of those expired phases are now being replatted as new subdivisions by the new
owners.
185
Page 17 of 17
Site #14 – South Town Square
Description: (Circumstance 3 – Significant Reinvestment) The site of this project was the
location of a church for many years. The church wanted to expand more than the
site would allow and sold the property. The planning designation for the site was changed to commercial and rezoned to B-1.
A proposal to redevelop the site as a grocery store passed through two different
application attempts and was not successful. Both proposals included substantial
variation from the standards of the B-1 district. The owners of adjacent residential properties strongly opposed the proposals. The City was sued over the decisions to not approve the grocery store project and prevailed.
A proposal was approved in 2008 to develop the site with five individual
buildings and common parking areas. The project generally conformed to the standards of the B-1 zone and was approved. Three of the buildings are presently constructed. They are used for a mix of restaurants, offices, and retail uses.
The project has been very successful. The number of restaurants has required the
owners to find more parking areas than were originally considered necessary for the project. An off-site shared parking agreement with a nearby church provides use of existing parking during the off-peak hours for the church. This enables the
South Town Square to meet its parking needs without having to dedicate its own
scarce land are to additional parking. It benefits the church financially as they are
paid for the use of their parking that they had already constructed. The City benefits by having less storm water generated, more land in productive activities rather than car storage, and businesses being able to be successful and contribute
to the community. The off-site parking option is built into the municipal code for
all commercial and institutional uses. The option is usually an administrative
review not requiring a variance or other special consideration. The development subsequently decided to
eliminate the future fifth building and reconfigure
the parking lot to add approximately 40 spaces to
the site in order to add convenience for customers and employees. The project does not have any available on street parking adjacent to the site and
relies heavily on off street parking. While the
project does utilize the allowable parking
reductions for neighborhood business in the code the new onsite parking spaces allow the project to better absorb the peak parking demand at certain
times of day. The fourth building on site is
anticipated to be constructed next year.
186
Amendment Consideration List
Infill Directly Associated Amendments
1. Clarify what level of improvements triggers sign compliance to not include COA
level improvements to a site. Only expansions of buildings, revisions to the sign itself, or change in copy on the sign.
2. Change vision triangle restrictions at signalized intersections to be that of local streets
3. Conditional Use Permit use review changed to Site Plan review for some things with
specialized standards as needed.
4. Manufacturing, artisanal defined and included in districts 5. Remove overlapping Entryway Overlay and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District overlays to remove duplication or conflicting standards. E.g. N 7th Avenue
and West Main Street.
6. Identify the priority areas of compliance with adopted standards and clear triggers
when such items are required and when general compliance is required with redevelopment or reuse of property. Provide discretion to Director to determine
requirements if there is a question of applicability.
Infill Supportive Amendments Which Also Address The Larger Community
7. If Class I and Class II EO overlays overlap state which one takes precedence in standards.
8. Change the N 7th class I/II boundary to the railroad bridge
9. Consider whether to match the N 7th entryway overlay to the boundary of the Tax
Increment Finance District
10. Consider revising the single standard Arterial setbacks to differentiate between locations. Oak/ 19th/ W Main to keep 50 foot. Have E Main/ N 7th/ Mendenhall/Babcock to have base 7/25 with extra space reserved when no sidewalk
exists or ROW needed. Keep Base 25 feet for all residentially zoned, not mixed use,
areas.
11. Remove automatic distance for entryways and replace with specialized setbacks by corridor. 12. Drop restriction on manually changed reader boards in entryways from the design
guidelines.
13. Create procedure to provide greater sign area limits for large complexes, e.g. North
Park 14. Clarify how to measure building frontage for the purposes of calculating allowed sign area.
15. Vacation rentals – Should the City adopt special standards?
16. Change car sharing standard to bedrooms, not dwellings to provide additional
flexibility in its use. 17. Move standard conditions to code to reduce project complexity.
Demolition by Neglect Associated Amendments
187
18. Timing of allowance of demolition with different triggers based on degree of
contribution to historic districts and conditions
19. Bonding of demolition for historic projects to bring back to weather tight condition or
to clear the site if needed. Limited application to specified types of projects.
188
189
190
191
192
193
Page 1 of 6
EXISTING INFILL SUPPORTIVE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS
1) Land Use provisions
a) Option for further development, expansion of up to 20%, and reuse without full site review, including for CUP at an administrative level.
b) Option for lot modification by subdivision exemption which is more expansive than normally allowed
per state law
c) Allowance for intensification under sketch plan review for residences
d) Allowance for deviations in NCOD provides extra flexibility in rehab of existing buildings.
e) Microscale option for telecom to provide services in developed areas
f) B-3 cash-in-lieu of parkland default option
g) Parking alternatives such as transit accessibility, parking garage accessibility, minimum building size
parking exemption, bicycle parking option, reduced parking standard for downtown, reuse without full parking provision
h) Allow for expansion and change in non-conforming uses and buildings without full levels of review
and often without a need for a deviation or variance
i) No variance or deviation is required for expansions to non-conforming buildings unless the expansion
itself does not conform to the requirements.
j) Reuse/further development review process which allows expansion of up to twenty percent without site plan review or full parking compliance.
k) Option to reinvest in site lighting, parking improvements, or landscaping without triggering full site
plan review.
l) Northeast Historic Mixed Use zoning district
m) Expansive home occupation provisions
n) Traffic study exemption and level of service exemption for built out intersections
o) Zoning districts with broad ranges of uses and extensive building envelopes
p) Design review process in historic areas provides confidence in the protection of reinvestments.
q) Option to renew Conditional Use Permits without having to go through a CUP a second time.
2) Impact Fees
a) Trip Exchange District for Downtown per data in most recent study allows for 29% cost reduction for
transportation impact fees.
b) Buildings which were in existence before the impact fee program began in March 1996 have a limited exception from transportation impact fees if they are expanded.
c) For all fees a credit is given for the service demand value of all existing development on site at time
of redevelopment or expansion. This can in many circumstances result in no fees being charged for new
projects.
d) No water or wastewater piping costs are charged for expansions or intensifications to existing services so long as increased demand is less than 1 acre foot of water.
e) Opportunity for other areas to perform a trip study to establish a lower cost transportation impact fee
for that subsection of town.
194
Page 2 of 6
3) Public Works
a) Routine pipe replacement increases pipe sizing to minimum of 8 inch diameter which increases capacity and fire flow for increased new development.
b) Cash-in-lieu of water rights not assessed until an additional acre foot is required for service which can
be up to an additional 6 dwellings per acre of attached homes.
EXISTING DIRECT FUNDING SUPPORT
Tax Increment Districts
1) Grants for site/building evaluation and site issue scoping in the N 7th and Downtown TIFs.
2) Matching funds or reimbursements for site clearing, renovation, and public streetscape improvements in
the N 7th and Downtown TIFs.
3) Downtown Partnership directly fund support key projects it identifies as important to the health of Downtown.
City Direct Investments
1) City routinely reinvests in pipe upgrades and replacements which keep services in good condition and
which provide additional capacity for increased development. For example, an increase in size from a six inch to eight inch water main increases volume by 78% at minimal additional cost. In excess of 3.5 miles of pipe have been replaced in the past 5 years.
2) Facility planning to proactively identify and correct service deficiencies.
3) COA surcharge to pay for regular updates to the entryway and conservation district standards.
4) The City makes many forms of information available to the public through tools such as the GIS website, general website, plat room, and staff response to inquiries. Building division will perform building inspections on request to help identify building related issues for existing structures. This information
enables potential investors to more quickly understand issues on a property and reduces uncertainty and
related costs.
195
Page 3 of 6
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Issue – Applicable Standards Complexity Formal Revision Required In –House Contract Needed Time Required
1) What are the minimum standards we will
insist on for reuse of existing structures?
a) ADA for both building and site compliance
b) Lighting compliance
c) Storm water
d) Removal of unsafe conditions
e) Pedestrian perimeter circulation
f) Street trees and boulevards prioritized over other landscaping
g) Others?
MED YES X NO 6 months
2) Will new construction on infill sites have
any relaxations from code standards?
MED PERHAPS X ? 3-6
months
3) Arterial setbacks distinction – Residential vs Commercial vs Mixed Use, variation by
location e.g. Mendenhall vs N 7th vs West Main/19th ?
MED YES X NO 6 months
4) Transition points for entryway corridors LOW YES X NO 6 months
5) Urban vs. suburban base expectations. Adjust regulations and design guidelines to match expectations.
MED YES X YES 8-10 months
6) Landscaping within developed areas – many alternatives available but are the points required correct
LOW YES X NO 6 months
7) Alley development provisions per Downtown Improvement Plan MED YES X NO 3 months
8) Subdistricts in the B-3 zone per the
Downtown Improvement Plan
HIGH YES X 9 months
9) Non-conformities – How important is it to
have them corrected? Use vs. improvements
MED PERHAPS X NO 3 months
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR PARKLAND
Issue – Parkland Complexity Formal Revision Required In –House Contract Needed Time Required
1) Parkland Provision Triggers
a) Parkland for infill projects – presently
LOW YES X NO 6 months
196
Page 4 of 6
Issue – Parkland Complexity Formal Revision
Required
In –
House
Contract
Needed
Time
Required
triggered by site plan process, would it be better to have a numeric trigger.
b) Parkland for minor subdivisions – not collected now but is authorized by statute as
an option, pursue Y/N?
2) Parkland Cash-in-Lieu
a) Infill projects – Automatic cash-in-lieu
approval for more than B-3?
b) Cash-in-lieu Value Determination- Appraisal or fixed price updated
periodically, option to do either at applicant’s choice?
c) Parkland for minor subdivisions – not
collected now but is authorized by statute as an option, pursue Y/N?
e) Should proximity to a certain level of
park, e.g. community scale, weigh into the decision to allow or favor cash-in-lieu of parkland. PROST 8.4
f) Should there be a numeric threshold of land area to be dedicated below which cash-in-lieu is the default option to meet park dedication requirements?
g) Value capture for foregone improvements which would have otherwise been installed as
minimum park standards
MED YES X NO 9 months
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Issue – Administrative Procedures Complexity Formal
Revision Required
In –House Contract
Needed
Time
Required
1) How to coordinate private and public improvements HIGH PERHAPS X NO 9 months
2) Outreach for improved understanding –
printed materials, videos, personal presentations – Better isn’t any good if no one knows about it
MED NO In person
presentations
X 3-12
months
197
Page 5 of 6
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES REGARDING DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
Issue - How to Best Measure and Control
the Intensity of Development
Complexity Formal Revision
Required
In –
House
Contract
Needed
Time
Required
1) Accessory Dwelling Units and accessory
building provisions – what needs to change so they are successful but not overwhelming
YES YES X 12 months
2) Change bulk standards to FAR or similar
and provide greater flexibility
MED YES X 8 months
3) Establish a percentage change from existing or percentage difference from
surrounding to allow incremental change
HIGH YES X 6 months
4) Design manual showing how to integrate new development into existing community
fabric
HIGH NO X 9 months
INFILL CHALLENGES THAT ARE NOT UDC RELATED
• Challenges with land assembly into financially viable units
• City Commission has by ordinance prohibited the City’s use of eminent domain to assemble parcels for private development
• Redevelopment often includes higher costs to clear a site of existing structures and/or remediate
contamination
• Neighborhood resistance to intensification
• Need for staging areas and interference with adjacent development
• State law requirement (Section 76-2-309, MCA) for more restrictive standard to apply when two standards conflict
• Access to telecommunications infrastructure for infill – How difficult is it to obtain?
• Greater likelihood of clouded titles
• Could we develop an infill option identification tool to compare the value of land to the cost of improvements under the theory that high value land with low value improvements is underutilized?
198
Page 6 of 6
RELATED ONGOING INITIATIVES
IWRP and cash-in-lieu of water rights
Demolition by neglect
Historic preservation tax credits
Reconsideration of Historic Preservation approach and legal structure
Demolition of historically contributing buildings timing and required review steps
Broadband steering committee
Development of the storm water utility
Capital Improvements Program
Completion of a context sensitive design streets ordinance
Deferred Maintenance catch-up program for water, sewer, and streets
Joint funded Downtown historic inventory update between the City and the BID
ISSUES FOR GENERAL POLICIES
The following are subjects which will require commission discussion and direction at a future time. They have a connection to infill. Some of these would be substantial policy initiatives in and of themselves. They
are identified for informational purposes at this time.
Issue – Substantive Policy Complexity Formal Revision
Required
1) Development of Annexation Policy for wholly surrounded areas –
a) Under what conditions and initiated by whom
b) Bridge funding assistance when otherwise financially infeasible for the owners.
MED NOT UDC
2) Alternative compliance or deviation equivalents outside of the overlay districts – How to address HIGH YES
3) Updating the zoning map to appropriately match land uses, growth policy, and on the ground activities MED YES
4) Parallel codes – Infill/intensification/ form based vs. green
fields, what should differ.
HIGH YES
5) How to appropriately credit private improvements against an SID or similar shared funding program
MED NOT UDC
6 Transitions at district edges between areas of significant difference in allowed intensity of development MED YES
7) Downtown parking provisions and the cash-in-lieu program
and the old SID
HIGH YES
199
Infill Resources:
McConnell, Virginia & Wiley, Keith. Resources for the Future. May 2010. Infill Development:
Perspectives and Evidence from Economics and Planning. http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/RFF-
DP-10-13.pdf
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, Infill Development: Completing the Community
Fabric”. http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/infilldev.aspx
Northeast Midwest Institute. 2001. Strategies for Successful Infill Development. Northeast-Midwest
Institute Congress for New Urbanism. http://tmrpa.org/uploads/misc/1045697875-
Barriers%20%20Incentives%20to%20Infill%20-%20version%209%20FINAL.pdf
Wheeler, Stephen, PhD, AICP. Greenbelt Alliance. Spring 2002. Smart Infill: Creating More Livable
Communities in the Bay Area, a Guide for Bay Area Leader.
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/resources/Smart_Infill.pdf
Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), October 2001. Models and Guidelines for Infill Development.
http://planning.maryland.gov/pdf/ourproducts/publications/modelsguidelines/infillfinal_1.pdf
Center for Urban Policy Research, Edward Bloustien School of Planning & Public Policy, Rutgers and The
State University of New Jersey. New Jersey Infill Development Standards and Policy Guide. June,
2006. http://www.nj.gov/state/planning/docs/infillstandards060106.pdf
San Antonio, TX. Inner City Reinvestment / Infill Policy.
http://www.sanantonio.gov/ccdo/docs/Inner%20City%20Reinvestment_Infill%20Policy%20_2_%20
_2_.pdf
Idaho Smart Growth & ULI Idaho. The Consequences of Residential Infill Development on Existing
Neighborhoods in the Treasure Valley.
http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/images/uploads/files/uliisg_infill_report.pdf
Farris, J. Terrence. 2001. The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smart
Growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1): 1-30.
http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/hpd_1201_f
arris.pdf
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. 1997. Infill Development Strategies for Shaping
Livable Neighborhoods. Report No. 38.
http://www.lafayettelinc.net/spsdc/doc/Infill_Incentives_GAP_approved_Jan_9_08.pdf
Muro, Mark and Robert Puentes. 2004. Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and
Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns. Brookings Institute Center on
Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2004/3/metropolitanpolicy%20muro/20
0403_smartgrowth
200
Robinson and Cole LLP. 2002. Best Practices to Encourage Infill Development. White paper prepared for
the National Association of Realtors.
http://www.warealtor.org/government/qol_cd/Policy_Briefs/Policy_Guides/policyguide.pdf
201
Livable New York Resource Manual
http://www.aging.ny.gov/LivableNY/ResourceManual/Index.cfm
1
II.3.g
Paul Beyer, Director of Smart Growth
Governor's Smart Growth Cabinet
Albany, NY
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Description:
Infill development is the process of developing vacant, underused, or abandoned
properties within existing cities, towns, or neighborhoods, including the
undeveloped portion of existing residential double lots if the owner is willing to sell
the undeveloped portion. Communities typically have such properties, which, for
various reasons, have been passed over in the normal course of development or
urbanization. Infill development can be utilized to respond to a range of community
needs and to achieve various community objectives and goals—such as additional
housing, community centers, retail establishments, civic resources, playgrounds,
economic stimulus projects, and many others.
Ideally, infill development involves more than the piecemeal development of
individual parcels; instead, a successful infill development program should focus on
crafting complete, well-functioning neighborhoods.1 For example, effective infill
development can be a valuable tool in helping to promote a community's livability—
creating overall residential densities high enough to support desired alternative
transportation choices and a wider variety of convenience services and amenities;
providing alternative choices in housing to meet the diverse needs and preferences
of community residents; returning cultural, social, and recreational opportunities to
a community; providing gathering places for increased interaction among
community residents; and improving or restoring economic and social vitality to
older town/city centers and neighborhoods.
Reference: 1 "Infill Development: Completing the Community Fabric," Planning Tools and
Resources. Seattle, WA: Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington:
Working Together for Excellence in Local Government.
Benefits:
For residents:
Meeting consumer needs: The dispersed, small areas characteristic of many
infill spaces create opportunities to provide successful housing alternatives (such
as elder cottages, grandfamilies housing, "small houses" for single individuals, a
shared living residence, and others) that are needed and desired by a
community's many discrete, but smaller, consumer groups that do not comprise
a sufficient market size to justify a traditional housing project or complex.
For residents and communities:
An infill development program is a useful tool for increasing the livability of a
community—offering opportunities and spaces to add customized housing,
services, and amenities that can be tailored to individual neighborhoods.
202
Livable New York Resource Manual
http://www.aging.ny.gov/LivableNY/ResourceManual/Index.cfm
2
II.3.g
For communities:
An infill development program makes efficient use of a community's total land
area.
Infill development uses the existing land in developed areas more resourcefully,
which discourages sprawl on the suburban or rural fringe.
Infill development is a smart growth tool because the necessary infrastructure is
already in place to serve the project.
A well-designed infill program can project a positive image of density and
mixed-use development.
Impediments or barriers to development or implementation:
Neighborhood residents may fear denser development, and may view the infill
project as changing the existing community character.
Overall success of infill development requires attention to the design of infill
projects, to ensure that the new development fits the existing community
context, meets neighborhood needs, and gains neighborhood acceptance.
It is often more difficult and expensive to purchase and assemble land in
desirable infill locations.
Existing local zoning and building set-back requirements (see Relaxed/Flexible
Building Set-Back Requirements in the Resource Manual) may not allow the
necessary densities, and may require additional effort to use an alternative
zoning tool to achieve the goal of the infill project.
Resource—examples and ordinances:
"Infill Development: Completing the Community Fabric" (April, 2009), Planning
Tools and Resources. Seattle, WA: Municipal Research and Services Center of
Washington—Working Together for Excellence in Local Government. Numerous
links providing extensive, substantial information on all aspects of infill
development, including statutes, ordinances, examples, case studies, evaluation
studies, guidebooks, design guidance, barriers, and more.
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Planning/infilldev.aspx.
Living Smart Program (skinny homes)—affordable single-family homes on
narrow infill lots, Portland, Oregon.
http://www.huduser.org/portal/casestudies_iss1_2.html.
Urban Land Institute (2005), “Rochester, New York: Strategies for Re-Creating
the Urban Core,” An Advisory Services Panel Report. Washington, DC: Urban
Land Institute. http://www.rochesterdowntown.com/news/PDF/ULIreport.pdf .
(October, 2001), Models and Guidelines for Infill Development: Managing
Maryland's Growth. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Planning.
203
Livable New York Resource Manual
http://www.aging.ny.gov/LivableNY/ResourceManual/Index.cfm
3
II.3.g
http://planning.maryland.gov/pdf/ourproducts/publications/modelsguidelines/inf
illfinal_1.pdf.
Scott Siegel, et al. (September, 1999), The Infill and Redevelopment Code
Handbook. Salem, OR: Oregon State Department of Transportation.
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/publications/infilldevcode.pdf.
City Council—Downtown Action Team (2000), Downtown 2010 Sector
Development Plan.” Albuquerque, NM: City of Albuquerque—Planning
Department; Downtown Action Team.
http://www.cabq.gov/planning/publications/down2010/preface.pdf.
(January, 2009), Special Use Infill Options and Design Tools Available Through
the Neighborhood Plan Combining District. Austin, TX: City of Austin.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/infill_tools.pdf.
Dover, Kohl, and Partners (1996), "Port Royal Traditional Town Core," Port
Royal, South Carolina Master Plan for Infill Development. Coral Gables, FL:
Dover, Kohl, and Partners.
http://www.doverkohl.com/project.aspx?id=49&type=0.
http://www.doverkohl.com/files/pdf/Port%20Royal%20SC.pdf.
Resource—written and web:
Great Communities Collaborative (2005; amended 2006), Greenbelt Alliance
Compact Development Guidelines: Guidelines for Reviewing Neighborhood Scale
Infill Plans and Projects:
http://www.greatcommunities.org/intranet/library/sites-tools/great-
communities-toolkit/ComDevGuide.pdf.
Great Communities Collaborative: A unique cooperative relationship among
several San Francisco Bay Area nonprofit organizations: Greenbelt Alliance,
Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, TransForm, Urban
Habitat, East Bay Community Foundation, San Francisco Foundation, Silicon
Valley Community Foundation, and the national nonprofit Reconnecting
America—for the purpose of shaping plans for specific transit-oriented
developments in Bay Area communities and encouraging resident
participation in planning for those developments:
http://www.greatcommunities.org/.
Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (2010), Infill Design. Portland, OR: City of
Portland, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=34024.
The Infill Design Toolkit: A guide to integrating infill development into
Portland's neighborhoods:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=49254&.
204
205
Page 1 of 2
Agenda
Infill Discussion
August 27th, 3-5 p.m. Madison Room, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, 2nd Floor
1) Meeting purpose and background (3 min)
2) Definitions used for discussion, see below (5 min)
3) Discussion Questions (45 min)
A. Success stories for infill projects. What worked and why?
B. What challenges have you experienced working with infill projects? C. What do you think most makes infill acceptable to adjacent property owners?
4) Policy Options (20 min)
A. Bonding for project stabilization
B. Access to information relating to the value of land or existing improvements for potential infill properties and infrastructure availability
5) Future outreach options (15 min)
6) Next steps (5 min) A. Upcoming Commission tour and work session
B. Groups of issues and potential actions
C. Text and map amendments
Working Definition: This working definition has been prepared to provide a shared idea of what
is meant by "infill." This may be revised as the discussion goes forward.
Generalized definition: Infill is either the intensification of development or redevelopment on a site which was previously developed for urban use; or the initial development of vacant
property located with historically developed neighborhoods.
Infill Circumstances- Infill comes in many flavors. We have identified these four broad subgroups with some examples. Some projects may span more than one of these subgroups.
1) Addition or provision of infrastructure to previously underserved areas within the
outermost boundaries of the City without an immediate increase in intensity or change in type of development. Ex. Western Drive.
2) Reinvestment in existing properties and buildings to enhance their functionality and to
increase their value and improve their appearance while not materially increasing the
206
Page 2 of 2
intensity of use. Ex. Red Barn at 15th & Main Street, Town & Country Food on S.
11th Ave.
3) Significant intensification of use, often including new building construction, on sites
previously developed but which are substantially underutilized within the limitations of development standards. Ex. brownfields like Idaho Pole, redevelopment like
Northside PUD on N. Rouse Ave., or intensification like the Etha Hotel.
4) Development on proportionately small previously undeveloped areas located within
neighborhoods which have been developed for at least 25 years. Ex. the field between
the Fairgrounds and N. Fifth Avenue; or the lot at the NE corner of West Babcock and Meagher Avenue.
207
1
Z13205 Infill Policy ZMA
Stakeholder Meeting #1
August 27, 2013
Tony Martel, Dave Crawford, Chris Budeski, Dustin Johnson, Chris Saunders,
Mike Money, Laura Dornberger, Brit Fontenot, Rob Pertzborn
Dave: Block M - Why good - Cooperative City attitude, willing to sit down and discuss issues. Shared funding for
infrastructure. Quick review.
Rob: Proactive to address project issues to get ahead. Ex: discussed home demos before project submitted.
Chris B.: Informal reviews more useful now than previously. Local street how much do you build up front--100% or
66%? Ex: Valley Drive annexation and development.
Rob: One parking space per dwelling really helped Block M.
Chris B.: Proximity to university for parking reduction? RPAB - good to work with in finding solutions. Cash-in-lieu of
parkland can be problematic - use when needed (Rob Pertzborn agrees). Yes to single annual appraisal.
Rob: Interpretation of existing code is important. Be careful with informals re red flags and don’t be shy.
Mike: Biannual political changes can be hard to follow. Constant reviews can change costs. Certainty is
important, need clear definitions so less review time and fewer uncertainties. Especially an issue with HP
and affordable housing.
Chris B./Rob: Follow book is good.
Laura: Less time in DCD, more predictable.
Tony: Do what say and will go smooth. Tell no early if it will be no.
Chris B.: Work on sending out comments early.
Rob Why three DRCs? Is it really needed?
Chris B.: Screens good addition.
Mike: Data access to find conditions.
Rob: Level of scrutiny based on level of professional engaged in project. If real issue then apply to all. Could we
post applications with DRC agenda.
Chris B.: Look at Gillette Wyoming for digital submittals.
Chris B.: Level of public improvements needed with infill projects - shared funding for big work. Pay them time
improvement to match with overall needs and service demand.
Dave: IF? timing
Mike: CIP where permitted to support infill, ho_______ to adjust priorities.
All: infrastructure timing and limited fair share impacts.
208
2
Mike: Neighbor opposition based on misunderstandings or general opposition. Should dev approach neighbors
early. Neighbor influence at Commission is heavy. Early contact builds credibility.
Laura: Neighbors should be coming in sooner.
Tony: Not sure if need directive by City to do neighborhood meeting first. Inviting them to the “party” early
lessens opposition.
Portland infill manual - Need to protect neighborhood evolution of the community. Historic districts maybe better to
develop a checklist of issues to be examined with infill projects.
Bonds - Ability to obtain, cost of acquisition, uncertainty of need. May be better to verify funding availability before
project constructed, legal access to connections.
Info access - Don’t go there.
How do we balance HP/infill with safety and improvements to existing homes?
209
1
Z13205 Infill Policy ZMA
Stakeholder Meeting #2
August 29, 2013
Anders Lewendhal, Ken Ryder, Allison Gilley, Susan Riggs, Erik Garberg, Chris Saunders
Ken: 534 South Black Avenue two small homes to replace one. Well received, did informal, good neighbor
support. Small lot construction staging was a challenge.
Allison: 59th, zone change preceded, 3-plex condo parking/garage/drainage takes large area and causes off-site
flow. Occupants have been okay.
? Infill and density relationship, more administrative flexibility and neighborhood characteristics to consider
individual projects.
Erik: Options to loosen variances? Deviations a local process have more flexibilty.
Susan: ADU more sliding scale options.
Ken: Working on second home single lot R-2 setback issues. South Black and East Alderson. Encroachment
permit for fence. Discussed possible vacation at personal home street. Ex. of dealing with unique options
way to make project work.
Erik: Concern on vacation and possible effect on utility extension.
Ken: Recent changes to allow ADU to piggyback from main house with W/S.
Anders: Cottonwood where silos replaced with homes. Predictable is good - opportunity to investigate how to do
project in advance.
Erik: Possible conflict between standards for large/small scale and ability to design.
Susan: Can be easier to prepare applications on smaller projects. Pre meetings with neighbors can be helpful.
Ken: How are neighborhood comments weighed?
Erik: Influenced by criteria.
Ken: Architectural standards South Black and Dickerson. How to keep consistent and contribute to
neighborhood need more reliable.
Susan: Existing demo criteria difficult to apply. What data supports actions. How to make the costs and other
evaluation criteria consistently applied. Some differences in data supported by professional stamp?
Different homes have different nuances.
Ken: Key element is the function. Ability to mix and match. Ex. new foundation/old house.
Anders: Balance HP with other priorities like energy efficiency.
Ken: New interest in smaller houses, requires more careful design which can be more interesting as a builder
since costs tend to be fixed like bathrooms and kitchens.
210
2
Ken: ADU side walls 5/3 - three makes it hard to do.
Erik: Valley West - ADU expected.
Ken: Bonding - larger commercial maybe? Less likely to have stoppages on small residential.
Susan: Block M would have been of little effect in preserving homes. Site specific.
Erik: Bonding common for community projects for contractors’ bid bonds. Helps screen.
Anders: Hard to pick and choose. How do you choose?
All: Not sure valuable benefits are enough.
Susan: Could tag be scaled and make available elsewhere?
All: Agree education is good, tone of conversation is important. How to convey deal-killers without being
overly negative or non-deal-killers.
211