orange county developer's forum - orange code
TRANSCRIPT
DEVELOPER’S FORUM
JUNE 17, 2016
INTRODUCTION
Today’s Agenda
• Why the Orange Code?
• Scope of the current effort
• Survey results & Discussion
• Approach to the Orange Code
• Invitation for further participation
BACKGROUND
Why the Orange Code?
Streamlining Initiative
• Process Improvements
• Address the “unwritten rules”
• Clearer code requiring less interpretation
• Reconcile the Comprehensive Plan and the Code
• Empower staff to make decisions that expedite
the process
BACKGROUND
Streamlining Initiative
• Correct redundancies and contradictions within
the code that muddy interpretations
• Allow for flexibility and creativity
• Create a code that enables redevelopment
• Target specific areas for infill/redevelopment
BACKGROUND
Sustainability Plan
• Development that is: • Context-sensitive
• Walkable & Bike-able
• Infill & Redevelopment
• Transit Oriented
• Transit Ready
• Complete Streets
• Shared Parking
• Historic Preservation
BACKGROUND
Scope of the current effort?
• Year 1
• Background Research
• The Existing Code
• Peer Jurisdictions & Innovative Practices
• The Physical Context
• Public Engagement
• Implement Pilot Codes
• Years 2-3
• County-wide applications
The Existing Code
Assess the existing Land
Development Code
High level of bureaucratic
complexity
Low level of built complexity
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Physical Context
Evaluate the County’s
physical context
Six Market Areas with
different conditions
and different trends
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
NORTHWEST
SOUTHWEST SOUTH
RURAL EAST
EASTCORE
Peer Jurisdiction Codes
• Envision Utah
• Beaufort County
• Dona Ana County
Public Engagement
• OrangeCodeFL.com
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Developers’ Forums
• Multiple Public workshops
• Expert Panels
• Staff workshops
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT
Pilot Codes
• I-Drive Vision and Code
(staff-led)
• TOD Module
• Greenfield Module
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT
County-wide Recommendations
• Initial Approach (Year 1)
• Comprehensive Proposals (Year 2-3)
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT
SURVEY RESULTS
SURVEY RESULTS
Process
• “The Code is predictable, the process is not”
• “The code is interpreted differently between the Planning and the
Zoning Department”
• “Almost everything is subjective!”
• “Lack of predictability leads to increased risk”
• “Overlap of different Codes” need improvement
SURVEY RESULTS
Planned Developments
• “Now every project is a PD. Straight zoning is really a thing of
the past.”
• “The PD process is cumbersome”
• “The PD process adds significant time to a project with
limited flexibility/innovation due to the requirement to acquire
waivers for anything that does not adhere to the land
development code.”
SURVEY RESULTS
Gaps in the Standard categories
• PD “is the only way forward given the limitations of straight zoning.
[You] can’t do a 50' wide lot without a PD.”
• “See what are the most waivers granted with all the PDs” as a good
indication of what is missing in the regular zoning categories
• Identify “differing standards and processes for mixed use vs. regular
subdivisions”
SURVEY RESULTS
Barriers to Infill & Mixed Use
• “Create true mixed use standards built around development form - move away from land use”
• Existing standards are “too simplistic to allow urban development ”
• “The concurrency system is completely antiquated in urban areas of the County and this retards infill”
• “PD buffers do not make much sense with an urban infill project.”
• “All of this needs to be looked at in an Urban context rather than Suburban”
SURVEY RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Approach to the Orange Code
Approach
• Goals• Streamlining Objectives
• Sustainability Objectives
• Technical Approach• Market Areas
• Sector Analysis
• Place Types
• Form-Based Coding as a tool
• Geographic tools
• The Modules
Streamlining
• Reduce complexity (overlays, overlapping standards, exceptions)
• Eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies
• Reformat for readability and navigability
• Use graphics to provide clarity
• Review approval processes for streamlining opportunities
Result: Increased efficiency and predictability for all
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Planned Developments
Sustainability
• Coding for character rather than narrow uses
• Great streets and connected mobility networks
• Selective densification and mixing of uses
• Greening streets and neighborhoods with canopy shade trees
• Reduced areas of grass to water and mow
Result: Lifestyle and mobility options
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Would you walk here?
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Would you walk here?
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Level of Change
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Very High
Ch 38: Zoning
HighCh 30:
Planning and Development
Ch 34: Subdivision Regulations
MediumCh 24:
Landscaping, Buffering & Open Space
Ch 31.5: Signs
LowCh 19:
Floodplain Management
Market Areas
Would a context-based
approach be simpler?
Would a context-based
approach get better
results?
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
NORTHWEST
SOUTHWEST SOUTH
RURAL EAST
EASTCORE
Orange County Future Land Use Map
• APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Zoning Map
Orange County Future Land Use Map
• APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Sector Planning
• Big picture of where and
how to grow
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
DONA ANA
Orange County Sector Analysis
• PO - Preserved Open space sector
• Existing preserved
• RO - Reserved Open space sector
• Desirable for conservation
• CG/RG – Controlled/Restricted Growth sector
• Rural / agricultural land in near or long term
Rural Sectors
(Generally outside
the USA)
Orange County Sector Analysis
• IG - Intended growth sector
• Large new development areas
• e.g. Horizon West, Innovation Way
• I/R – Infill/Redevelopment sector
• Areas with potential for significant redevelopment
• e.g. major corridors or centers or large infill properties
• ES – Established sector
• Established neighborhoods and areas
• SP – Special sector
• e.g. airports, universities, landfills; theme parks.
Urban Sectors
(Generally inside the
USA)
Place Types
• Currently calibrating
for Orange County
• Subdivision
Regulations would
vary by Place Type
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Place Types in Utah
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
The Rural to Urban Transect
How Character Coding Simplifies
Overall Structure
Market Area &
SectorMarket Area 1- Sector X
Place Type Place Type 1 Place Type 2 Place Type 3
Transect PlanTr
an
sec
t A
Tra
nse
ct
B
Tra
nse
ct
C
Tra
nse
ct
A
Tra
nse
ct
B
Tra
nse
ct
C
Tra
nse
ct
D
Tra
nse
ct
B
Tra
nse
ct
C
Tra
nse
ct
D
Miami 21
Before
&
After
Auto Sales
Regulating form allows flexibility in uses
Before
After
• The 700-acre West
Plan Beach Plan
revitalization produced
coherent development
with targeted
interventions attentive
to the local tradition.
• The plan reinforced the
identity of each
neighborhood while
balancing the needs of
vehicles and
pedestrians on
downtown streets.
Geographic Approach
Preliminary Geographic Approach
• GROW• E.g. Innovation Way
• County or Developer Initiated Place Types
• Developer-Initiated Transect Plan
• TRANSFORM• E.g. I-Drive
• County or Consortium Initiated Transect Plan
• EVOLVE• E.g. Pine Hills
• County Transect Plan
• MAINTAIN• E.g. Hunter’s Creek
The Modules
The Modules
• TOD Module
• Greenfield Module
The Orange Code Goals
• Promote sustainable growth
• Regulatory flexibility and streamlined process
• Adaptable to meet specific community needs
• Encourage diverse housing options
• Create attractive, valuable places
DISCUSSION