Building disposition: How to get good buildings that face the street

[southsideamy]

A question to the urban design/architecture set:

We're finalizing a zoning ordinance amendment that would require new commercial buildings to be placed close to the street with parking in back. This falls in line with many of the new LEED-NA standards and also fits with our municipality's desire to see a more walkable type of commercial development. We are an extremely suburban community with little to no walkability (currently).

The ordinance would apply only to an area of town this is currently "greenfield". We cannot seem to write an ordinance that applies effectively to the built-out areas of town where the building lines and shared parking facilities have already been set. We hope to get to it, but we want to make sure that we can make it work in a greenfield first.

As we're writing this ordinance, we're coming across several issues relating to implementation:

1. If you require a building to have two/three/four sides, how do you ensure that the building tenants will not block entrances from the street or block windows on several sides of the building? We're seeking transparency.

2. Several of the local architects are telling us that "you'll never get retailers to go into two/three/four sided buildings."

3. Where do you put dumpsters and transformers on a multi-sided building? We try to encourage enclosing these types of things, but we always get a lot of push back from this.

4. Drive-through uses are particularly complicated. Even when we lay out alternatives, they complain about access and potential for accidents. How do you ensure that drive-through lanes do not end up facing the major street?

5. Why is this so darn difficult? Does anyone really love the traditional strip center or single-site drive-through restaurant?

We hope to try to work out all the kinks before we adopt our ordinance. Your thoughts are appreciated.

[mike gurnee]

You cannot do it without support from your governing body. Rally the trooops for support. BTW, I share your pain.

[stroskey]

I thought all buildings had at least 4 sides?

Edit - put in the ordinance that sides facing the public street must have usable entrances/exits that shall remain intact and open to the public for the duration of operation within the building.

[dvdneal]

What I've seen in a few cases are:
Some stores will have 2 entrances one on the street side and one parking lot side
I've even seen restaurants that allow you to walk through the kitchen
The problem is that most businesses will need a "back of house" area. It's usually the kitchen/office/restrooms. The usually means no windows on that side.
Also some businesses don't want 2 entrances - it's hard to watch for theft.

I would recommend putting all the junk - transformers, back of house, etc. in the parking lot. It's a parking lot, you don't need a beautiful view (just my thought).

For drive-thru's, if you want a walkable area, why would you allow a drive thru? Zone them out of the area. There are plenty of fast food restuarants that have a business model without a drive-thru.

That's the easier said then done part, I feel your pain because we're trying to do the same thing.
Our current issue is that ALL (according to developers) retail centers must have an anchor. And the anchor store must have parking that can access the front door.

Good luck! I hope it works.

[southsideamy]

You cannot do it without support from your governing body. Rally the trooops for support. BTW, I share your pain.

Troops are rallied! The draft ordinance is supported by the board and plan commission. We've already tried, though negotiations, to get some of the elements of the ordinance into site plans, but no one will agree to it without coercion of an ordinance.

I just want the ordinance to work! The worse thing that could happen would be to get the buildings moved to the street and then have all the businesses put paper/metal over the windows and doors, use the storefront as a billboard, not allow people to enter from the street, and completely turn their back on the street -- with it all hanging out as a store-front. I'll post some pictures tomorrow from a nearby community that adopted a similar ordinance and now have businesses using their street-side storefronts for advertising.

Can't zone out drive-throughs....and not worth the fight. We don't allow them in most of town, but the areas being rezoned with the new ordinance are a long busy corridors. I know there's a way to do them better.

Yes...all buildings have four sides (hahah!)...you know what I mean.....

Thanks for all your help so far...keep the good thoughts coming.

[Cardinal]

In all my travels I have never found any place that does gas stations better than the Milwaukee area, with the building on the street and the pumps to the rear. Even the more standard ones have a much better design than nearly anywhere else.

In this area and elsewhere, moving the building toward the street has been a trend. Unfortunately, it most often results in a long, blank wall against the street. I have a couple wonderful photos in my collection of the street-side door, without even a path to connect it to the public sidewalk. It is only there for show. On the positive side, I have not seen the windows (if any) coverd up or the walls used as a billboard.

In my thinking on this I have leaned toward allowing larger buildings - such as grocery stores and big or mid-boxes - to locate to the rear. Small stores, strips, fast foor places, banks, and the like can be made to work against the frontage, either aligning the door to serve both the street and the side parking lot, or by having both an entranc to the street and to the parking lot. If these are placed in front of the bigger buildings, you still get a street wall.

[dvdneal]

I found a couple samples of drive-thru ideas in Tempe, AZ (Mill Avenue and University intersection) The Jack-In-The-Box has been there forever and dumps its traffic into Mill - not the best answer, but there is an old bank northeast of it that keeps all the traffic in the parking lot. -Just an idea.

For the windows, can you write a sign ordinance to prevent the billboard movement. Our code only allows you to cover 25% of a window.

[boiker]

A question to the urban design/architecture set:

We're finalizing a zoning ordinance amendment that would require new commercial buildings to be placed close to the street with parking in back. This falls in line with many of the new LEED-NA standards and also fits with our municipality's desire to see a more walkable type of commercial development. We are an extremely suburban community with little to no walkability (currently).

The ordinance would apply only to an area of town this is currently "greenfield". We cannot seem to write an ordinance that applies effectively to the built-out areas of town where the building lines and shared parking facilities have already been set. We hope to get to it, but we want to make sure that we can make it work in a greenfield first.

As we're writing this ordinance, we're coming across several issues relating to implementation:

1. If you require a building to have two/three/four sides, how do you ensure that the building tenants will not block entrances from the street or block windows on several sides of the building? We're seeking transparency.

Require that principal entrances are provided on street-sides. Require, much like sign code, that windows are at least xx% unobstructed and transparent.

2. Several of the local architects are telling us that "you'll never get retailers to go into two/three/four sided buildings."

Nearly every outlot building has a level of 4-sided architecture. If the side of the building can be accessed easily and viewed easily by the public, it should be treated appropriately. One of the bonuses of building adjacent to sidewalks with little or no setback is that it eliminates the requirement for at least two of the building sides from being upgraded. The rear can also be expempted by code if you feel that the utility of the rear (parking, loading, refuse) discludes it from needing the high level of detail that the street-side fronts require.

3. Where do you put dumpsters and transformers on a multi-sided building? We try to encourage enclosing these types of things, but we always get a lot of push back from this.

Transformers: work with ComEd. Find out what they require* (prefer) and decide what you prefer and work from there.

Dumpsters/Enclosures: More difficult to work with. Strive for locating them along service drives and/or interior parking lot drives which serve as the service drive for the outlots as well as minor traffic routes for customer traffic. Interaction between the two is inevitable in a traditional subruban shopping mall arrangement. I think that if you are looking to improve the functionality and aesthics of an enclosure, require quality masonary styled to match the building (same/similar materials, color, features) and high quality metal, self-closing, gates. Wood enclosures fall apart very fast, gates get left open without this. I hate babysitting, but it seems that many employees don't know or don't care to conceal the dumpsters.

4. Drive-through uses are particularly complicated. Even when we lay out alternatives, they complain about access and potential for accidents. How do you ensure that drive-through lanes do not end up facing the major street?

Conditional/Special Use Permit because they are particular complicated and signifcant traffic issues (interior and exterior to the site) can manifest if they are not properly addressed. What are you're goals with reard to drive-throughs? That may help answer some specifics.

5. Why is this so darn difficult? Does anyone really love the traditional strip center or single-site drive-through restaurant?

The few people who love this design are the banks, investors, and businesses who have depended on this setup to profit for over four decades. Customers like their predictability and convenience. However, we can't ignore aesthetic or functional issues with the sites when there are practical ways to remedy those issues.

[southsideamy]

In all my travels I have never found any place that does gas stations better than the Milwaukee area, with the building on the street and the pumps to the rear. Even the more standard ones have a much better design than nearly anywhere else.

In this area and elsewhere, moving the building toward the street has been a trend. .

Cardinal: Can you give me the towns/munis in the Milwaukee area that have these standards in ordinance? Or do you know the interesections so that I can see them on google maps?

Thanks Boiker and DVDneal - good points -- good example DVD.

Our thoughts on big box anchored centers (and grocery store power centers) would be to allow the big box at the back of the lot (thus dealing with the parking requirements), but use the outlots to properly screen the street wall. Also, if you can get a good grid of connected streets inside the development, outlot type buildings can front the interior streets and create walkable areas inside the center.

We are going to required shared parking areas between the big boxes and outlots, connected sidewalks between buildings, using detention areas as amenities and trying to get them close to the street.

I really like the idea of having drive-throughs be special uses. Problem is that almost all the new development comes through as PUD.

One of the trustees said the other day "This sounds like a fad. Are you sure you won't think that parking in front of the buildings is the way to go in ten years?" I've been making the case for timeless walkability and good urban design....let's hope we're successful!

[Cardinal]

There are a couple examples at Moreland and Brookfield. A little further west there is a Fresh Market with the door facing east. The north and west walls against the street have no windows. Loading is on the south - good site plan but not so for the facade. A little further west on the north side of Bluemound is a strip. It is one that I mentioned, with a door to nowhere. Delafield has the best gas station. Two story colonial with pumps in back. I have images of several of these that I can send to you if you are interested, as well as others that I can't think of the cross-street.

[whit]

Cardinal,
I would be very interested in seeing images of the gas stations you describe.
Milwaukee is one of my favorite cities.

[Chet]

southsidearmy Delafield, Wisconsin is an excellent example. I don't know if the codes are on line though.

[DetroitPlanner]

Amy, some of the best stuff I've seen like this was in of all places suburban Orange County California. Check out some of Aliso Viejo on Google street view or arieals.

It made me embarassed of the schlock we see around the Great Lakes. I'm now convinced that we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but convincing others? Thats a different story.

[maxxoccupancy]

Seabrook is dealing with the same problems, here. We have no professional, full time planner, and people who know absolutely nothing about land use planning are making demands at meetings, rather than proposing solutions.

Always allow variances if necessary for safety. Aesthetics are important, but not as important as life itself.

My philosophy on development is that anything that looks bad (dumpsters to drivethroughs, parking to grease trap vents) should go in back, away from the main street and sidewalk. Come up with a pedestrian friendly environment facing the sidewalk, then let business owners solve those other problem in the back of the restaurant.

I believe that it's also important to prevent only those things that you're trying to prevent (strip clubs next to daycare centers, etc), rather than trying to have people in City Hall designing and micromanaging the whole town. Let business owners come up with the solutions. Just prevent a handful of really bad things that you don't want in your town.

Tax what's bad. Prevent what's terrible.

[boiker]

Amy, some of the best stuff I've seen like this was in of all places suburban Orange County California. Check out some of Aliso Viejo on Google street view or arieals.

I was just there about a month ago. I failed to take many pics of the urban environment. Yes, the quality is good. But it was still a very subruban context.

[southsideamy]

I was just there about a month ago. I failed to take many pics of the urban environment. Yes, the quality is good. But it was still a very subruban context.

Our ordinance building disposition ordinance passed!!

We had unanimous support at Plan Commission and the Village Board. I think Boiker's thoughts will hold true -- it will still be the surburbs, but perhaps a bit of urbanism and better site planning. It still won't be the great urbanism of some Chicago neighborhoods, but holding development to a higher standard never hurts our community.

Once the ordinance goes on-line, I'll post a link to it here.

[ThePinkPlanner]

We have a pretty good set of regs in place for this in one particular district, but so little has been built there that I can't really assess its effectiveness yet (a function of the property undergoing a long EIS, not the restrictions of the regulations). The best tool is the building envelope. Some sample text with respect to setbacks and envelopes:

A. Purpose. The general intent of the building setbacks in the Central District is to
require all buildings to front on to public streets and to require that parking facilities are located in the center of the blocks to the greatest extent practicable, occupy only minimal frontage on public streets, and are thoroughly screened from view from public streets and rights-of-way.

All buildings and structures, with the exception of parking facilities, are
required to be constructed within an allowable building envelope. The
maximum depth of allowable building envelopes shall be eighty (80) feet and,
in general, shall be measured from the nearest planned public street right-ofway

(1) Multi-level parking garages and decks may be constructed within an allowable
building envelope, and/or outside of an allowable building envelope if located
in the center of a block.
(2) Surface parking may be provided within the allowable building envelope if it
is located behind a building and is hidden from view from the public street.
(3) The Development Review Board may approve surface parking which is within
the allowable building envelope and which is not hidden from view from the
public street by a building, provided:
(a) the subject parking represents the smallest practicable portion of the
total parking required for the property,
(b) the area encompassed by the subject surface parking represents a
significantly minor portion of the total allowable building envelope
area existing on the property,
(c) the applicant has sought parking waivers from the DRB to reduce the
amount of surface parking required, and
(d) the overall site design of the property is found to be in conformance
with the intent and purpose of the Central District.

Outside of this district we have blanket language that states that parking shall be located to the rear or sides of the building to the greatest extent practicable. This has been misinterpreted by our Board often enough that we are currently working through it now with better language. I should have a final product I can share in about a month- the PC wants local developers to take a look at it for loopholes. Liked they'd admit them right? Heehee.