noblesville unified development ordinance...

Noblesville Unified Development Ordinance

Audit

December 4th, 2012

Shane Burkhardt, AICP RW Armstrong

Project Summary

• Started project in the beginning of June 2012 • Conducted focus groups July 2012 • Conducted sign workshop July 2012 • Conducted online survey August-October 2012 • Completed economic analyses October 2012 • Completed UDO review November 2012

Noblesville UDO Audit - 2

Focus Groups

• Area developers • Commercial and industrial real

estate brokers • Local business owners • Sign industry professionals • Retail representatives • Institutional users • Planning and urban design

professionals • Elected and appointed officials • City staff


Focus Group Results

• Landscaping – Helps protect overall property investments

– Little flexibility in the ordinance for modifications

– Inhibits the use of low-impact development (LID) principles

– Timing of planting requirements does not meet ideal climate conditions for planting


Focus Group Results

• Signs – Juxtaposition between overall view that

regulations were good in general but not for individuals

– Not enough flexibility in the downtown area (temporary signage)

– Size and material requirements may not meet industry standards resulting in higher expenses


Focus Group Results

• Process – Overall improvement in planning department

performance with permitting

– Disconnect between planning and engineering (lag times, inspections, etc.)

– Want more administrative approvals by planning staff

– Case managers for projects


Focus Group Results

• Future Development – Typical route for development would be PUD to

circumvent by-right district standards not meeting market needs

– Want more incentives

– More refinement of residential districts is needed


Focus Group Results

• Organization – Overall organization of the UDO document is

confusing to the lay reader

– Use of references is inconsistent

– More usable document requested


Public Sign Workshop

• Held on July 30th 2012

• Results (on-line survey generally mirrored workshop results) – Sign ordinance generally works

– Permit approval process is cumbersome for small business

– Lack of flexibility in temporary signage

– Congruence with industry standards (size/material)


UDO Audit Process

• Public engagement

• Best practices and zoning trends

• Economic analyses to find potential regulation barriers

• Compared identified competitor communities

• Provided recommendations at two levels (detailed and broad-based)


Competitor Communities


Broad-based Recommendations

• Flexible Mixed-Use Standards

• Low-Impact Development (LID)

• Parking

• Process/Organization

• Signage

• Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

• Walkability


Signage

• Good use of graphics to help convey definitions and requirements

• Sign language should refer to comprehensive plan for justification of restrictions

• More flexibility in times for display of temporary signage

• Conformance with sign industry standards to lower costs



Comparison Communities Matrix

Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1Ordinance must be content neutral and include a substitution provision. X X X X ● X X

2Include detailed defintions and illustrations. ● ● ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ●

3 Include a severablility clause. ○* ○* ○* ○* X ○* ○*

4Describe intent and purpose and refer to Comprehensive Plan. ○* ○* ○* ○* ○* ○* ○*

5 Flexibility in temporary signage. ○1 ○2 ○3 ○4 ○5 ○6 ○7

6Include "time, place, and manner" regulations. ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● Fully Incorporated ○ Partially Incorporated X Not At All Incorporated

1. Banner display maximum 28 days, may be broken into four, 7-day periods. Businesses would prefer more 2 or 3 day periods allowed. 2. Banner permit for 30 days, can be renewed for additional 30 days. After 30 day period of no display, can apply for new permit. 3. Banner display for 30 days with period of 30 days between displays. 4. Sale, event, or promotion signs may be displayed for any number and combination of days not to exceed 30 in a calendar year. 5. Varies by district but generally less flexiblity than other ordinances. 6. Inflatable signs not more than 35 days per year, banners are limited to one period of not more than 60 days before an event and 5 days after. 7. No more that four, 1-week periods during a calendar year.

* The intent is described at the beginning of the sign ordinance but there is no reference back to any part of the comprehensive plan.

* A severability clause is included at the beginning of the UDO, zoning ordinance, or municipal code but not in the sign ordinance specifically.

1. Includes definitions but few graphics. 2., 3. and 4. Includes definitions but no graphics.

Comments

Flexible Mixed-Use

• Allow true mixed-use by-right in certain districts

• Vary district densities to increase compatibility between low density edge and higher density center


Flexible Mixed-Use

• Adopt district design standards that vary to allow for creation of spaces that are different and unique

• Use incentives such as density bonuses for LID, open space, accessibility, etc.




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1 Create true mixed-use ●6 ●1 ●5 X ●3 X ●2

2Allow infill development in commercial zones ○6 ●1 X X X X ○2

3 Develop a variety of mixed-use districts ● ●1 ●5 X X X X

4Create urban design standard based zoning ● X X X X X X

5 Create incentive zoning districts ● ○ X X X X X

6Create variable density and bulk regulations to protect adjacent uses ○6 X X ○4 X X X

4 - Ankeny - Site plan requirements include compatibility with neighboring properties 6 - Noblesville - in standards for site review it speaks to compatibility with adjacent uses; also inthe architectural relationships section

Fishers - Density bonus for open space

Fishers - they have extensive design standards (Article 7), but not as the basis of the zoning districts

1 - Fishers - Four mixed use districts 5 - Cedar Park - Code includes Mixed-use; Town Center; Mixed residential; and Neighborhood Commercial

1 - Fischers - The Town Center Special district ensures capatibilty 2 - Naperville - Teardown/Infill regulations for residential uses; section 6-2-26 6 - Noblesville - site review and architectural standards do some of this, but specific requirements for infill development are not separately described

1 - Fishers has both horizontal mixed-use (Town Center Commercial/Residential and Town Center Gateway Commercial) and verticle mixed-use (Town Center Main Street and Town Center Special) 2- Naperville - The B4 Downtown Core District is a true mixed use with residential on the 2nd or higher floors; the B5 Secondary Downtown District is a horizontal mixed-use district 3 - Eden Prairie - Town Center District encourages mixed-use 5 - Cedar Park - Code includes a mixed-use district 6 - Noblesville - mixed uses are allowed in General Business, Downtown, and the Village Center MU districts, but these are not designed as true mixed use districts

Comments

Low-Impact Development (LID)

• Bio-retention facilities incorporated into parking lot landscaping

• Reduce overall impervious surface coverage through material and parking standards

• Incorporate LID principles in design manuals

• Offer incentives for LID best-practices

• Incentivize or require native landscaping




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1Bio-retention facilities incorporated into parking lot landscaping X X ○1 X X ○2 X

2 Reduced impervious surface coverage X X X ○1 ○2 ○3 X

3Include detailed information about specific green infrastructure best management practices ○1 X X X X X X

4Remove restrictions on downspout disconnection and stormwater reuse X X X X X X X

5

Offer incentives or reduced requirements for development proposals that include green infrastructure

X ○1 X X X X X

6Establish native landscaping requirements ○1 X ○2 X ○3 ○4 X


1. Stormwater fess are based on impervious coverage. 2. and 3. Development standards include maximum impervious coverage percentages.

1. Not specifically addressed but not precluded with the requirement of curbing. 2. Innovative landscaping is encouraged and evaluated on a case by case basis.

Comments

1. Use to replace turf grass is only at Director discretion. 2. requirements for xeriscape or native plantings and bonuses for native plantings. 3. Native planting requirements only apply to wetland areas. 4. Innovative landscaping is encouraged and evaluated on a case by case basis.

1. Conservation subdivisions allow narrow streets without curbs

1. Appendix K - Pervious concrete pavement design standards

Parking

• Require appropriate parking ratios – maximum parking requirements

• Continue aesthetic requirements for parking lots but incorporate LID principles

• Allow reductions for bicycle facilities, walkability factors, on-street parking and transit




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1 Require appropriate parking ratios ○ ○ X X X X X

2 Plan for the future X X X X X X X

3 Be mindful of aesthetic value ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○

4 Incorporate sustainable design elements ○1 ○1 ● X X X ○1

5 Design to serve the needs of all users ○ ○1 ● ○2 X ● ●

6Provide transit, bicycle, and on-street parking credit, where applicable ○1 ○1 ○1,2 ○1 ○1 X ○1,2


Comments

1. On-street parking allowances are available.2. Bicycle Parking is incorporated.

1. Significant landscaping and screening is required

1. Overlay provides for pedestrian friendly design.2. Requires pedestrian access to be evaluated.

Communications & Coordination

• Continue and codify internal communications structure

• Prioritize policies to minimize conflicts

• Provide public access to all development decisions and findings

• Ombudsperson/Case management

• On-line website with all information needed


UDO Organization

• Consider who the user is in the language and organization of the ordinance

• Avoid standalone sections or provide extensive cross-referencing

• Create a fully integrated digital ordinance

• Extensive use of clear and concise graphics




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1Ordinance includes policies, instructions, law, and process ○1 ○2 ○3 ○ ○ ○ ○

2 Ease of use ○ ○2 X ○4 ○5 ○6 ○

3 Avoid standalone sections ○1 ○ X X X X X

4 Extensive cross referencing ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ X

5 Fully integrated and digital ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


None have interactive digital versions

1 - Noblesville - some standalone sections requiring the user to know they exist and flip back and forth from one section to another

Comments

2 - Fishers - extensive use of graphics, significant cross referencing, andn indexing. The only thing missing is a digital interactive version. 4 - Ankeny has information on their web site, including FAQs which are helpful 5 - Eden Prairie - They have several "handbooks" to help the user; and they also have a good set of FAQs on their web page 6 - Oak Lawn - one of the worst, very difficult to navigate and once there, no indication by page numbering what section you might be in. However the digital version uses hyperlinks

1 - Noblesville - the code has general policies, some instructions, little law, and some process. More specific policies from the comprehensive plan would be helpful. Instructions, and process should be in the way of handouts, and information on the Web. 2 - Fishers - Has good intro sections giving instructions on use and policies behing the regulations. 3 - Cedar Park - almost no policies or instructions

Transit-Oriented Development

• Encourage unique design regulations for the area

• Encourage mixed-use development

• Regulate all modes of transportation including walking and bicycling

• Provide density bonuses to incentivize design standards and uses




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1Establish unique regulations for the district X X X2 X X X ○1

2 Encourage mixed-use development ○1 ● ○2 X ○ ○ ●

3 Require enhanced aesthetics ● ○1 ○ X ○ ● ○2

4Regulate all modes of transportation within the development ● X1 ● ○ ○2 X ●

5Provide incentives to spur new development X ● ● X X X X


1. Provisions for park and ride facilities in place.2. Transit stations are allowed in certain districts

1. Mixed development is allowed in certain districts, though the amount of mixing permitted is limited.2. Mixed use is only allowed vertically in otherwise exclusively commercial developments.

1. Aesthetics are designed more for a community-wide appearance, rather than to emphasize a particular zone.2. Regulations for design are in place, but are hard to enforce.

1. Access control is identified as minimizing conflict, but does not propose standards for doing so.2. Bicycle and pedestrian access addressed.

Comments

Walkability

• Incorporate pedestrian level of service (PLOS)

• Require pedestrian circulation plans as a part of submittals

• Require walks in large parking lots

• Better utilize landscaping for pedestrians

• Provide additional standards or incentives for friendly pedestrian areas




Recommendation Nob

lesv

ille,

IN Fi

sher

s, IN

Ceda

r Pa

rk,

TX Ank

eny,

IA

Eden

Pra

irie

, M

N

Oak

Law

n, IL

Nap

ervi

lle, I

L

1 Designated pedestrian district(s) ○1 ○2 ○3 X ○4 X X

2Utilize pedestrian level of service calculations for new development X X X X X X X

3Require a pedestrian circulation plan as part of the development application or site plan submittal ○1 ○2 X ● ○3 X ○4

4 Require walkways in large parking lots X X X X X X ○1

5Utilize landscape requirements to improve the pedestrian environment ●1 ○2 ○3 X X X X


1. Some sub-districts and overlays include additional pedestrian standards but there are no true pedestrian districts. 2. and 4. Some districts contain additional pedestrian standards but there are no true pedestrian districts. 3. Some districts and overlays include additional development standards related to pedestrian facilities and safety.

1. Landscape improvements are evaluated on the basis of creating a desireable and functional environment for pedestrians. 2. Some districts require the coordination of pedestrian facilities and landscape features. 3. Includes language that landscaping should be used to create a desireable pedestrian environment; however, no requirement

1. Zoning administrator or city engineer may require sidewalks through parking areas.

1., 2., 3. and 4. Pedestrian facilities must be included on the site plan but no requirement for separate pedestrian circulation plan.

Comments

Conclusion

• Overall Noblesville is ahead of competitor communities in implementing best-practices

• The Planning Department is incorporating changes in terms of streamlining the permitting process

• Overall sign ordinance has struck the difficult balance of enforcing strict standards without over-regulation

• More can be done in terms of streetscape, unique district standards and encouraging a mix of uses


noblesville unified development ordinance...

Documents