1
From Here to There: Setting a Path for Austin’s Code!Code Approach Alternatives & Annotated Outlines Document!Public Review Draft!Presented by:"Daniel Parolek, Principal"Opticos Design, Inc.!!Presented to:!Code Advisory Group "September 22, 2014!!
!"#
$%&'()
(*+&,(#&-*.
")/)0&(
+$
1*+"%2''
,*+*,-*
'*134*%5
%&/&,
6,5
$&2%),
7*''4*
86"#
9"#
':/)0&(:'$:"):'*1
34*%5
$ ,
,*2')%5+
0,*++%*,
),(#&,5
8;"#
8<"#
,)$*,"+)'
(#&,%)""*
14'+"*5
="#",*/)'"
*'34*%5
0*&+*
#4>#%&'5
)&?%&'5
14'5+)
,
1&%+#
+&2*,+
1&"*,+")'
0&%/&
#&,"3),5
()'3*5*,&"*
="# #&%3
/)0&(
14'3%)
'*%+)'
/&,+#&%%
0&""*,
+)'
,)+*
&@>@+"&
A"#
%),,&4'
(&/0$*%%
0&@%
+#*%%*2
3,&'(4+
B"#
0)1*%%
%&/&,:$%-5
0&,?1
&2
#&,"#&'
*&+)'
/&@3,&4+
*%/
C"#
88"#:#&%3
' /)0&( +$ ") !"# *$
8A"#
/@,,&2
88"#
(*+&,:(#&-*.
1(*+&,(#&-*.")
'*134*%
'
/)0&(+$")8<"#
"#*,*+&
(*+&,
(#&-*.1$"),*+*,-
+"*0#*' 3 &@+"4'
%)@:'*33
(*+&,(#&-*.
")/)0&(
'$
$,)1'%**
19"# 1$ &" ' /)0&(
1:9"#:"):/)0&(:'$
1))5%&1
'
!"#$%&'($)*'(+,
< B<<¯
!"#"$%/DEEDFG:/DHHIJ:#KLEDFG
)MNJO:#KLEDFG
)MNJO:$LDIHDFGE
B
B
B
G
G
K
J
I
G
June 30, 2014
Austin Land Development Code Update
&Code Approach AlternativesAnnotated OutlinesAdministrative Draft (Not for Public Release)
,,,
==="""""#####"""",,,,,,,****/////)))))'''''""""""
#####44444>>>>>>######%%%&&&&&'''55555
%%%+++))))'''
June 30, 2014
Austin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code UpdateAustin Land Development Code Update
&Code Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesCode Approach AlternativesAnnotated OutlinesAdministrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)Administrative Draft (Not for Public Release)
1. Background
2. Overview of Approach Alternatives and
Recommended Approach
3. Overview of Elements
• These are the “ingredients” for the
approaches
4. Comparison of Approach Alternatives
and Basis of Recommendation
• Overview of 3 Alternative Approaches
• Comparing Approaches
• Our recommended Approach
5. Concluding Thoughts & Next Steps
!"
!"#$%&"&'($)($*%(+),,-&"$.(!"#$!% !"#$%
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
#$"?$"2++*:)")*"':2?)>A"E:*?42$")12";*$C2:(?)=*$"?$4"F22)"92*9>2"@12:2")12AK:2"?)0")12"3*425678"82?F"12>4"$&F2:*&("(F?>>B':*&9"F22)=$'("=$")12"I;)*E2:")*"L?$&?:A")=F2+:?F20"2D9>*:=$'"(=F=>?:"M&2(B)=*$("?$4";?9)&:=$'"=$9&)G"N2A*$4")12(2"=$B92:(*$"F22)=$'(0")12"82?F"&(24"H92?<O9%&()=$P0"?$"*$>=$2"(&:C2A")**>"?$4"4=(;&((=*$"+*:&F0"?("?$*)12:"@?A"+*:"%&()=$=)2(")*"(1?:2")12=:"C=2@(G"
I)12:";1?$$2>("+*:";*FF&$=;?)=*$"@2:2"2()?E>=(124"=$")12">=()2$=$'"?$4"&$42:()?$4=$'"91?(20"=$;>&4=$'"'?)12:=$'"(92;=+=;";?(2"()&4=2("+:*F"=$4=C=4&?>("?$4"':*&9("C=?"?$"*$>=$2"=$)2:?;)=C2"F?99=$'"9:*;2(("?$4")1:*&'1";*FF&$=)A"C=2@9*=$)("?$4"=((&2"9?92:("(&EF=))24"EA"C?:=*&("()?<21*>42:"':*&9(G"#$"?44=)=*$")*"):?4=)=*$?>"F24=?"*&)>2)(0")12"#F?'B=$2"%&()=$"Q?;2E**<"9?'20"8@=))2:0"?$4"2F?=>"$2@(>2))2:("12>924":?=(2"?@?:2$2(("?$4"E:*?42$"=$C*>C2BF2$)"=$")12"2++*:)G"
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
From Here to There: Setting a Path for Austin’s Code
Presentation Overview:
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 3
What choosing an approach does and does not do:
Set a framework Creates parameters to guide the revision of the LDC.
Allow for future flexibility Future City Council will have opportunity to reaffirm selected Approach.
Establish a road map for updating the code Chooses a direction for the CodeNEXT team to explore with Austinites.
Change existing regulations or policies such as neighborhood plans Does not say which regulations will be kept, replaced, or removed.
Revise zoning districts, neighborhood plans or create new districts No recommendation of districts.
Decide where new or revised zoning districts will apply within the City Code Approach does not provide direction for mapping.
U
U
U
D
D
D
D o e s N o t D o e s
S e l e c t i n g a n a p p r o a c h . . .
1 Background
4
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 5
Overview of the Project
Chronology of Events
June: Council unanim
ously
adopts Imagine Austin
2012 2013
January: Informal O
utreach
with key stakeholder groups
Novem
ber: Council briefing on
process to revise Austin’s LDC
February: Code Advisory
Group created
March: C
ouncil selects Opticos
Design as lead consultant
2013 - 2014: !
Listening to the
Com
munity
2014
www.austintexas.gov/codenext |
April: Listening to the
Com
munity Report
2014
May: C
ode Diagnosis Report;
Com
munity C
haracter Manual;
Council work session on C
ode
Diagnosis.
June: CodeTALK on
Com
patibility
September: Approach
Alternatives Report
October: C
ouncil selects
Approach Alternative
5
Overview of the Project
Chronology of Events
www.austintexas.gov/codenext |
March/A
pril: Council
Confirm
ation of Approach
2015-Mid 2016: !
Drafting process w
ith
feedback to revise LDC;
CodeTALKS on Issues;
Review of D
raft Standards.
2015 2016
5
Overview of the Project
Chronology of Events
www.austintexas.gov/codenext |
Summ
er/Fall: Code adoption
process begins
Late 2016 - 2017:
Mapping of new
code
2016 2017
Code Standards
in Effect
5
Overview of the Project
Chronology of Events
www.austintexas.gov/codenext |www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 6
The Work Done to Date Provides a Foundation for Approaches
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 7
Current State of the Code and Where Austinites Want to Be
Existing Code
!"#$#%&'#()"(!*+,#*#"&"-(!*.-)"#(/01&"
23*+,)%.4#5(."5(!"#6%)#"4
7"+8#5)%4.9,#:(7"%,#.8:(."5(23";)%&"-
<)6%0,4(43(!*+,#*#"4(."5(/5*)")14#8
=.1#5(3"(23**0")4>(?.,0#1
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 7
Current State of the Code and Where Austinites Want to Be
Existing Code
!"#$#%&'#()"(!*+,#*#"&"-(!*.-)"#(/01&"
23*+,)%.4#5(."5(!"#6%)#"4
7"+8#5)%4.9,#:(7"%,#.8:(."5(23";)%&"-
<)6%0,4(43(!*+,#*#"4(."5(/5*)")14#8
=.1#5(3"(23**0")4>(?.,0#1
Future Code
@0++3841(28#.&3"(3A(23*+,#4#(23**0")(."5(!*+,#*#"4.&3"(3A(B8)38)4>(B83-8.*1
@48#.*,)"#5(."5(7"5#814."5.9,#
B8#5)%4.9,#(C04%3*#1
D8."1+.8#"4:(23"1)14#"4(B83%#11#1
=.1#5(3"(23**0")4>(?.,0#1
2 Overview of the Alternatives A Path Forward
8
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 9
The Three Approach Alternatives Explored
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 9
The Three Approach Alternatives Explored
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1. Brisk Sweep
9
The Three Approach Alternatives Explored
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1. Brisk Sweep
2. Deep Clean and Reset
9
The Three Approach Alternatives Explored
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1. Brisk Sweep
2. Deep Clean and Reset
3. Complete Makeover
9
The Three Approach Alternatives Explored
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• No major structural/organizational changes to the Code.
• Clean-up of the existing LDC.
• Targeted refinements.
• Addition of a Form-Based Code that will have limited
application.
• Primarily to future small area plans.
10
Approach Alternative 1
The Brisk Sweep:
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Significantly reworks content and structure.
• Substantially improves the appearance, usability, and
consistency of the existing LDC .
• Citywide framework for form-based standards will be created
and applied to a limited number of interested
communities. But Allow for easy future applications.
• Hybrid nature allows for balanced mix of by-right review,
customized zoning, and discretionary review where
appropriate.
• Combining districts compressed where feasible.
11
Approach Alternative 2 [Recommended Approach]
The Deep Clean and Reset:
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Most extensive modifications to the existing LDC.
• Significantly reworks content and structure.
• Development standards include significant form-based
standards. Applied widely across the city.
• Development review process relies primarily on by-right
review.
• Combining districts are compressed where feasible
12
Approach Alternative 3
The Complete Makeover:
3 Overview of Elements Elements that Form an Approach
13
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 14
Elements that Form an Approach
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 14
1. Code Format & Organization
Elements that Form an Approach
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 14
1. Code Format & Organization
2. Development Review Models
Elements that Form an Approach
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 14
1. Code Format & Organization
2. Development Review Models
3. Development Standards Models
Elements that Form an Approach
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 14
1. Code Format & Organization
2. Development Review Models
3. Development Standards Models
Elements that Form an Approach
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 15
Criteria to Evaluate Elements of Code Approaches
1. Effectiveness
2. Clarity
3. Consistency
4. Predictability
5. Simplicity
6. Ease of Implementation
7. Ease of Administration
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 16
Evaluate Each Element Option with CriteriaCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 16
Evaluate Each Element Option with CriteriaCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 16
Evaluate Each Element Option with CriteriaCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability Simplicity Implementation Administration
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 16
Evaluate Each Element Option with CriteriaCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability Simplicity Implementation Administration
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level High Level
Code Format and Organization How Standards are Presented
17
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Format refers to the way
information is laid out on
a page;
size and style of text,
indenting, clear graphics,
tables, and paragraph
structure help to make
information easy to find
and understand.
18
Code Format and Organization:
Code Format
Clear break between major portions of code.
Table of Contents in each new section.
Clear indenting, section breaks, and labeling.
Strong headers and footers explain where you are in the document.
Clear graphics and illustrations visually explain regulations.
Table of Contents in each new section.B
Clear break between major portions of code.A
Clear indenting, section breaks, and labeling.C
Strong headers and footers explain where you are in the document.D
Clear graphics and illustrations visually explain regulations.E
A
Section 1703-2: Speci
1703-2.10
compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an environment of desirable character.
1703-2.20 Applicability
standards shall apply.The standards of this Section shall be considered in combination with the standards in Chapter 1433 (Hillside Development) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts). If there is a conDevelopment) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts), please see Section 1709 to determine which regulation control and govern.
C. Uses not listed in a use table are not permitted in the transect zone.
1703-2.30 Transect Overview
The standards in this Section, provide building form standards, land use, parking and signage standards for each Transect Zone. Some of the Transect Zones have a sub-zone that allows the same built form but allow additional ground Cincinnati Transect currently ranges from T3 Estate to T6 Core. Table A, below, provides an overview of the Cincinnati Transect.
Subsections:1703-2.10 Purpose1703-2.20 Applicability1703-2.30 Transect Overview1703-2.40 T3 Estate (T3E)1703-2.50 T3 Neighborhood (T3N)1703-2.60 T4 Neighborhood Medium Footprint (T4N.MF)1703-2.70 T4 Neighborhood Small Footprint (T4N.SF)1703-2.80 T5 Main Street (T5MS)1703-2.90 T5 Neighborhood Large Setback (T5N.LS)1703-2.100 T5 Neighborhood Small Setback (T5N.SS)1703-2.110 T5 Flex (T5F)1703-2.120 T6 Core (T6C)
$%&'()*($%+,%++-&%(.)/0"1-234($)43
1703-2.201703-2.301703-2.401703-2.501703-2.601703-2.701703-2.80
B
1703-2.20
B.
C
$%&'()*($%+,%++-&%(.)/0"1-234($)43
D
compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an environment of desirable character.
Applicability
standards shall apply.e standards of this Section shall be considered in combination with the standards
in Chapter 1433 (Hillside Development) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts). If there is a conDevelopment) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts), please see Section 1709 to determine which regulation control and govern.Uses not listed in a use table are not permitted in the transect zone.
Transect Overview
e standards in this Section, provide building form standards, land use, parking and signage standards for each Transect Zone. Some of the Transect Zones have a sub-zone that allows the same built form but allow additional ground Cincinnati Transect currently ranges from T3 Estate to T6 Core. Table A, below, provides an overview of the Cincinnati Transect.
ApplicabilityTransect OverviewT3 Estate (T3E)T3 Neighborhood (T3N)T4 Neighborhood Medium Footprint (T4N.MF)T4 Neighborhood Small Footprint (T4N.SF)T5 Main Street (T5MS)T5 Neighborhood Large Setback (T5N.LS)T5 Neighborhood Small Setback (T5N.SS)T5 Flex (T5F)T6 Core (T6C)
$%&'()*($%+,%++-&%(.)/0"1-234($)43
B. Number of Units
Units per Building 12 min.
Stacked Flat Building per Lot 1 max.
C. Building Size and Massing
Height
Height 2 stories min.1
1 Height shall also comply with transect zone standards
in Section 1703-2 (Specific to Transect Zones).
Main Body/Secondary Wing(s)
Width 200' max.
Depth 200' max.
Accessory Structure(s)
No accessory structures are allowed.
A
B
D. Allowed Frontage Types
Porch: Projecting 1703-4.50
Stoop 1703-4.70
Forecourt 1703-4.80
E. Pedestrian Access
Units shall enter from a courtyard or a street.
Courtyards shall be accessible from the front
street.
Each unit may have an individual entry.
F. Private Open Space
No private open space requirement.
G. Courtyard(s)
Width 40' min.; 150' max.
Width-to-Height Ratio 1:2 to 2:1
Depth 40' min.; 150' max.
Depth-to-Height Ratio 1:2 to 3:1
Area (Total) 400 sf min.;
50 sf/unit min.
C
D
E
Front Street
Alley
Front Street
Alley
ROW / Lot Line
Setback Line
Building ROW / Lot Line
Setback Line
Frontage
Open Space
Key
C
B
A
D
E
!"#!$%&'()*($%+,%++-&%(.)/0"1-234($)43 .%+-5(6/-*&(#78978!
8:;!"!<8#;�6SHFLÀF�WR�%XLOGLQJ�7\SHV=&-,>34(.5-&2
standards shall apply.e standards of this Section shall be considered in combination with the standards
in Chapter 1433 (Hillside Development) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts). If there is a conDevelopment) and Chapter 1435 (Historic Landmarks and Districts), please see Section 1709 to determine which regulation control and govern.Uses not listed in a use table are not permitted in the transect zone.
Transect Overview
e standards in this Section, provide building form standards, land use, parking and signage standards for each Transect Zone. Some of the Transect Zones have a sub-zone that allows the same built form but allow additional ground Cincinnati Transect currently ranges from T3 Estate to T6 Core. Table A, below, provides an overview of the Cincinnati Transect.
$%&'()*($%+,%++-&%(.)/0"1-234($)43
ApplicabilityTransect OverviewT3 Estate (T3E)T3 Neighborhood (T3N)T4 Neighborhood Medium Footprint (T4N.MF)T4 Neighborhood Small Footprint (T4N.SF)T5 Main Street (T5MS)T5 Neighborhood Large Setback (T5N.LS)T5 Neighborhood Small Setback (T5N.SS)T5 Flex (T5F)T6 Core (T6C)
compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an environment of desirable character.
Applicability
Key
10 Purpose
This Section provides regulatory standards governing building form and other topics, such as land use and signage, within the transect zones. community vision for implementing the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to create places of walkable urbanism. compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an
is Section provides regulatory standards governing building form and other topics, such as land use and signage, within the transect zones. community vision for implementing the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to create places of walkable urbanism. compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an
is Section provides regulatory standards governing building form and other topics, such as land use and signage, within the transect zones. community vision for implementing the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to create places of walkable urbanism. compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties, and produces an
E
Units per Building
Stacked Flat Building per Lot
C. Building Size and Massing
Height
Height
Applicability
The standards of this Section shall apply to all proposed development within transect zones, and shall be considered in combination with the standards in Sections 1703-3 (Speci(Supplemental to Transect Zones). If there is a constandards shall apply.
Applicability
A.
Applicability
e standards of this Section shall apply to all proposed development within transect zones, and shall be considered in combination with the standards in Sections 1703-3 (Specifi(Supplemental to Transect Zones). If there is a constandards shall apply.
Applicability
e standards of this Section shall apply to all proposed development within transect zones, and shall be considered in combination with the standards in Sections 1703-
fi(Supplemental to Transect Zones). If there is a constandards shall apply.
C
Section 1703-2: Speci
Subsections:
Section 1703-2: Speci�6SHFLÀF�WR�%XLOGLQJ�7\SHV
Section 1703-2: SpeciD
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 19
Example of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in Codes
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 19
Example of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in CodesExample of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in CodesExample of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in CodesExample of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in Codes
Tables and diagrams make
information easy to find and
simple to understand.
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
Organization refers to the way
information is arranged within
the overall code document (the
table of contents).
20
Code Format and Organization:
Code Organization
1
1
2
2
3
4
Existing Code: Many different locations to look for basic regulations.
1
2
3
4
Potential Code: one location for all of the same regulations.
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Use the existing code framework/organization.
• Clean up and targeted recalibration of standards.
• This might mean creating new districts and compressing some
existing districts, but few changes to the overall code structure.
21
Code Format and Organization Options:
1. Revised Format & OrganizationCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Replace the entire code with a new, alternative framework.
• Recalibrate the standards in detail. !
22
Code Format and Organization Options:
2. Replacement Format & OrganizationCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 23
Code Format and Organization Options:
Comparing OptionsCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | REVISED CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
2 | REPLACEMENT CODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
• Replacing the code format and organization will produce
a document that is:
• Substantially more simple to use than revising code
format and organization.
• More clear and predictable.
Development Review Models How the Code is Used
24
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Process by which development applications are submitted,
evaluated, and ultimately approved or denied. Or more simply,
“how do you use the code.”
• The length of the review process, the number of review
loops, and the subjective or objective nature of the process
should be kept in mind.
• In any of the development review models, careful consideration
should be given to the development standards to ensure
predictability in the built results.
25
Approach Elements:
Development Review Models
Approach Elements:
Development Review Models
1. By-right (Standards-based)
Approach Elements:
Development Review Models
1. By-right (Standards-based)
2. Discretionary Review
Approach Elements:
Development Review Models
1. By-right (Standards-based)
2. Discretionary Review
3. Customized
Approach Elements:
Development Review Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• In a by-right system, development applications that comply
with zoning can move to the building department/permit
quickly.
• This system is most effective when clear development
standards provide predictable built results.
• This can be applied to any Euclidean, performance or form-
based standards.
• Example Administrative Site Plan Review.
27
Development Review Models:
1. By-Right (Standards-Based)DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Standards are less specific and allow for more interpretation.
• Requires a more extensive, and sometimes subjective review
process to ensure the intent is met.
• Projects often undergo multiple review loops to obtain approval.
• Permits are issued at the “discretion” of the review authority.
• Example Sub-chapter E: Alternative Equivalent Compliance.
28
Development Review Models:
2. Discretionary ReviewDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• In a customized zoning system, new and independent
regulations are necessary to successfully regulate major projects.
• These new regulations are not coordinated with the overall
LDC.
• Hard to administer in the long term.
• Examples are planned unit developments (PUD) and small area
plans (regulating plans).
29
Development Review Models:
3. Customized ZoningDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 30
• By-Right achieves the best scores using these criteria.
• Discretionary Review can be very effective in targeted
applications, especially when a clear process and criteria are
defined.
• Customized Zoning achieves the weakest scores when assessed
using these criteria.
Development Review Models:
Comparing Development Review ModelsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
!
Development Standards Models Determine What and How a Code Regulates
31
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Development standards determine what
and how a code regulates.
• Also affect the efficiency of different
development review.
32
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
• Also affect the effieffief ciency of different
development review.
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1.Euclidean Zoning Standards;
33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1.Euclidean Zoning Standards;
2.Performance Zoning Standards;
33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1.Euclidean Zoning Standards;
2.Performance Zoning Standards;
3.Form-Based Zoning Standards; and,
33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
1.Euclidean Zoning Standards;
2.Performance Zoning Standards;
3.Form-Based Zoning Standards; and,
4.Hybrid code.
33
Approach Elements:
Development Standards Models
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Zones and code structure based
primarily on desired uses
Focus on use separation.
• Also sometimes called use-
based zoning standards.
34
Development Standard Models:
1. Euclidean Zoning StandardsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
Single Family Multifamily
Commercial Industrial
Single Family Multifamily
Commercial Industrial
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 35
Development Standard Models:
2.Performance Zoning StandardsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
• Regulates the effects or impacts of a proposed development
or activity on the community. Goal Oriented
• Less specific standards, providing more flexibility, but often
complex formulas that are hard to understand.
• Often used to protect natural resources.
• Performance standards can be negative or positive.
• Ex. They can set a maximum level for the noise impacts
or they can require specified types of buffers to be
established between certain types of land uses.
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Zones and code structure based primarily on desired form
rather than desired use.
• Focus on building form and public space.
• Typical Standards:
• Build-to-Lines;
• Broad Approach to Uses !(still has allowed use tables);
• Frontages and Building Types; and,
• Thoroughfare Standards.36
Development Standard Models:
3. Form-Based Zoning StandardsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of Implementation
& Administration
1 | BY-RIGHT (STANDARDS-BASED)
2 | DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
3 | CUSTOMIZED ZONING
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 37
Development Standard Models:
4. Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Combination and careful
coordination of the best of
conventional, performance and form-
based elements.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
ImplementationEase of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | Euclidean Zoning Standards
2 | Performance Zoning Standards
3 | Form Based Zoning Standards
4 | Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)
Key: High Level of Medium Level of Low Level of
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 38
Development Standard Models:
Comparing ModelsDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODEL CRITERIA TABLE
Models Effectiveness Clarity Predictability SimplicityEase of
Implementation Ease of
Administration
1 | EUCLIDEAN-BASED ZONING STANDARDS
2 | PERFORMANCE-BASED ZONING STANDARDS
3 | FORM-BASED ZONING STANDARDS
4 | MIX OF ZONING STANDARDS (HYBRID CODE)
Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level
• The mix of zoning standards – a Hybrid Code – scores the
highest with this criteria.
• Form-Based Standards and Euclidean-Based Standards can be
effectively applied to the right context.
• Performance standards can be less simple and clear, but can
be effectively applied to implement certain goals.
4 Comparison of Approach Alternatives Basis for Recommended Approach
39
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Team’s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
N
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
N
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
N
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
N
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
NApproach Comparison Table
Approaches
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
NApproach Comparison Table
Approaches Approaches
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 40
Approach Comparison Table
Elements Approaches
1 2 3
Code Format and OrganizationFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean up for Consistency Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance-Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MU
ST
R
EAD” SECTION
Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.
Administrative Draft: June 30, 2014 Code Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outlines | 3-3
Approaches
1 2 3
Code Document ModelsFormat Revise Replace Replace
Reorganization of Content Limited Extensive Extensive
Content Rewriting Low/Moderate Moderate High
Clean Up Same Across All Approaches
Development Review ModelsBy-Right Review Low Medium High
Customized Zoning High Medium Low
Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low
Development Standards ModelsEuclidean Based High Medium Low
Performance Based Same Across All Approaches
Form-Based Very Limited* Medium High
Is it a Hybrid? No Yes Yes
* Applied only in New Small Area Plans
Approach Comparison Table
Approaches Comparison
A “
MUST READ” SECTIO
NApproach Comparison Table
Approaches Approaches
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 41
CodeNEXT Team Recommendation
Deep Clean and Reset: Why this Approach?
• Code Format & Organization: This approach introduces a new
format and re-organization of the document to maximize
usability and clarity.
• Development Review Models: This approach introduces a good
balance of by-right development in selected areas and
discretionary review where appropriate.
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Development Standards Models: This approach creates a hybrid
code that applies Euclidean standards and form-based standards to
appropriate contexts, maximizing the benefits and strengths
of each without pushing the application of a form-based approach
too aggressively.
• This approach effectively implements Imagine Austin priority
programs, community input (Listening to the Community Report)
and Code Diagnosis.
• Importan Note: This Option does not represent a compromise!
42
CodeNEXT Team Recommendation
Deep Clean and Reset: Why this Approach?
5 Concluding Thoughts The Road Ahead
43
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
• Fleshing out Table of Contents, with
the core management team on staff
to a higher level of detail.
• Continue to engage community,
stakeholders, staff, boards and
commissions and Council.
44
When does the team get more specific about code changes? How will detailed comments from the community and city staff be used?
Revisions Progress Reports
Content Development
Review of Content
changes? How will detailed comments from the and city staff be used?
Revisions Progress Reports
Content Development
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 44
Review of Content
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 45
September 4:
• Approach Alternatives Document Released
• Council Comprehensive Plan & Transportation (CPT)
Committee
• Community Presentation: Approach Alternatives Document
September 8-22: Board and Commission presentations
September 9: Planning Commission
September 16: Codes & Ordinances Committee of Planning
Commission, and Zoning and Platting Commission
September 22: Code Advisory Group meeting
Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outline
Recent/Current Schedule
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 46
!
September 23: Planning Commission (2nd meeting)
October 2: City Council briefing
October 6: Code Advisory Group meeting
October 20: Code Advisory Group meeting
October 23: City Council hearing
Approach Alternatives and Annotated Outline
Upcoming Schedule
www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 47
www.austintexas.gov/codenext
Q&A:
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 48
!
!
!
•How flexibility can be built into the code
•Digital code improvements
•“Compressing” layers and simplification of zones
•Why approach 2 and not 3
•Current Council vs new Council
•Approach 2 and Austin’s net-zero goal
Most Frequent Questions and Themes: From Sept 4 event - Getting From Here To There
www.austintexas.gov/codenext 49
!
!
!
•Role of neighborhood plans
•Process for selecting neighborhoods interested in form-based
standards
•How the rewrite can respond to complex existing conditions
•Grandfathering
•How development review can include a valid petition process
•How transitional areas will be determined (by whom)
•Next steps and how these processes are determined
!
Most Frequent Questions and Themes: From Sept 4 event - Getting From Here To There (Contin.)