from here to there: setting - austin, texas€¦ · 1. background 2. overview of approach...

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

!"

!"#$%&"&'($)($*%(+),,-&"$.(!"#$!% !"#$%

!"#$%!&%!"#$%#$"%&'&()"*+",-./0")12"3*425678"9:*;2(("<=;<24"*++"=)(">=()2$=$'"91?(2"@=)1"?$"?::?A"*+"=$B429)1"=$)2:C=2@(")*"2D9>*:2"92:;29)=*$("?E*&)"':*@)1"?$4"42C2>*9F2$)"?$4"(92;=+=;"=((&2(":2>?)24")*")12">?$4"42C2>*9F2$)";*42G"#$"H29)2FE2:"?$4"I;)*E2:0">?:'2"9&E>=;"F22)=$'("@2:2"12>4")*"=$):*4&;2")12"9:*J2;)"?$4"'?)12:"=$9&)")*"12>9")12"3*425678"82?F"&$42:()?$4"@1?)"92*9>2">=<2"?$4"4=(>=<2"?E*&)")12"9>?;2("@12:2")12A">=C20"@*:<0"?$4"1?$'"*&)0"?$4"@1?)"=((&2("@2:2"=F9*:)?$)")*"?44:2(("=$")12";*42":2C=(=*$"9:*;2((G

#$"?$"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




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




Summ

er/Fall: Code adoption

process begins

Late 2016 - 2017:

Mapping of new

code

2016 2017

Code Standards

in Effect

5



www.austintexas.gov/codenext |www.austintexas.gov/codenext | 6

The Work Done to Date Provides a Foundation for Approaches


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


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")&#1(."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


The Three Approach Alternatives Explored

www.austintexas.gov/codenext

1. Brisk Sweep

9



1. Brisk Sweep

2. Deep Clean and Reset

9



1. Brisk Sweep

2. Deep Clean and Reset

3. Complete Makeover

9



• 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:


• 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:


• 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


Elements that Form an Approach


1. Code Format & Organization




2. Development Review Models




2. Development Review Models

3. Development Standards Models



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


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



Administration








Administration




Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability Simplicity Implementation Administration




Administration








Administration




Effectiveness Clarity Consistency Predictability Simplicity Implementation Administration




Administration



Key: High Level Medium Level Low Level High Level

Code Format and Organization How Standards are Presented

17


• 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


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)


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


Example of “Best Practices” for Usability and Clarity in Codes


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.


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.


• 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



Administration







Administration





• Replace the entire code with a new, alternative framework.

• Recalibrate the standards in detail. !

22


2. Replacement Format & OrganizationCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE



Administration







Administration






Comparing OptionsCODE FORMAT AND ORGANIZATION CRITERIA TABLE



Administration




• 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


• 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:


1. By-right (Standards-based)

Approach Elements:



2. Discretionary Review

Approach Elements:



2. Discretionary Review

3. Customized

Approach Elements:



• 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


DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE


& Administration







& Administration






• 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


2. Discretionary ReviewDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE


& Administration







& Administration







& Administration






• 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


3. Customized ZoningDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE


& Administration







& Administration







& Administration






• 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.


Comparing Development Review ModelsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW MODEL CRITERIA TABLE


& Administration





!

Development Standards Models Determine What and How a Code Regulates

31


• 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.


Approach Elements:



1.Euclidean Zoning Standards;

33

Approach Elements:




2.Performance Zoning Standards;

33

Approach Elements:





3.Form-Based Zoning Standards; and,

33

Approach Elements:





3.Form-Based Zoning Standards; and,

4.Hybrid code.

33

Approach Elements:



• 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


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



& Administration







2.Performance Zoning StandardsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE



Administration






DEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE



Administration








& Administration





• 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.


• 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


3. Form-Based Zoning StandardsDEVELOPMENT REVIEW VALUES TABLE



Administration









Administration








& Administration







4. Mix of Zoning Standards (Hybrid Code)

Combination and careful

coordination of the best of

conventional, performance and form-

based elements.




Administration









Administration








Comparing ModelsDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MODEL CRITERIA TABLE

Models Effectiveness Clarity Predictability SimplicityEase of


Administration

1 | EUCLIDEAN-BASED ZONING STANDARDS

2 | PERFORMANCE-BASED ZONING STANDARDS

3 | FORM-BASED ZONING STANDARDS

4 | MIX OF ZONING STANDARDS (HYBRID CODE)


• 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


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


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



Clean Up Same Across All Approaches



Discretionary or Design Review Medium Low Low


Performance Based Same Across All Approaches






A “

MUST READ” SECTIO

N



Elements Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MU

ST

R

EAD” SECTION

Approach 2 is the CodeNEXT Teamí s recommended approach.


Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MUST READ” SECTIO

N



Elements Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MU

ST

R

EAD” SECTION



Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MUST READ” SECTIO

NApproach Comparison Table

Approaches



Elements Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MU

ST

R

EAD” SECTION



Approaches

1 2 3















A “

MUST READ” SECTIO

NApproach Comparison Table

Approaches Approaches


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.


• 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


• 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


Review of Content


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


!

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



Q&A:


!

!

!

•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


!

!

!

•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.)

from here to there: setting - austin, texas€¦ · 1. background 2. overview of approach...

Documents