Coding for a Compact and Connected Austin

Coding for a Compact and Connected AustinJohn Miki

Project Manager

Daniel Parolek

Project Principal

Code Update Interview

March 7, 2013

1

Austin, Texas

Solicitation Number: CLMP122 Comprehensive Land Development Code Revision

Opticos Design, Inc. with: Fregonese Associates | Peter J. Park | McCann Adams | Cultural Strategies

Group Solutions | Lisa Wise Consulting | RCLCO | ECONorthwest Taniguchi Architects | Kimley Horn | McGuireWoods | Urban Design Group

December 14, 2012

05.27.08

Building Placement

Build-to Line (Distance from Right of Way)Bayfront Boulevard 0' A

Civic Space1 / Secondary Street 0' B

Bayfront Promenade1 10' min.; 20' max.2 C

Side 0' D

BTL Defined by a BuildingBayfront Boulevard 100% min.Secondary Street / Civic Space1 80% min.3

Bayfront Promenade1 80% min.1 The Bayfront Promenade is treated as its own frontage distinct from the Civic Space frontage within this zone.2 The BTL for the first building to receive planning department approval becomes the set BTL (must be within this range) for this zone. All subsequent buildings must match the first building's BTL.3 60% min. on Block J

Setback (Distance from Property Line or ROW)Rear 0' min.

Lot SizeWidth 100' min. E

Depth F

North of Bayfront Blvd. 100' min.South of Bayfront Blvd. 50' min.

Building Form

HeightBuilding 2 Stories min.;

4 Stories max.H

Ground Floor Finish Level 6" max. I

Ground Floor Ceiling 14' min. clear J

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling 8' min. clear K

FootprintDepth, Ground-floor Commercial Space

Bayfront Boulevard 50' min.Bayfront Promenade 30' min.Secondary Street 30' min.

Miscellaneous Distance between Entries

To Ground Floor 50' max.All upper floors must have a primary entrance along Bayfront Blvd.Service entries may not be located on Bayfront Boulevard.

Building Placement (Continued)

MiscellaneousBuildings must be built to BTL along each facade within 30' of a corner.

G

See the Streets and Circulation Regulation Plan on page 4-3 for the determination of Primary and Secondary Streets.

T5-MS: Bayfront Boulevard Main Street Standards

Cont'd.

1-12 HWDMP Sub-District AmendmentsOpticos Design, Inc.

Chapter 1: Building Form Standards

Sidewalk

Bayfront Boulevard

Bayfront Promenade / Rear

Seco

ndar

y St

reet

Civ

ic S

pace

BTL, ROW Line

BTL,

RO

W L

ine

BTL,

RO

W L

ine

A

C

EFD BB

I

ROW Line Street

K

K

K

J

H

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

ROW / Property LineBuild-to Line (BTL)

Setback LineBuilding Area

Key

A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers,Municipalities, and Developers

Form-Based Codes

Daniel G. Parolek, AIA Karen Parolek Paul C. Crawford, FAICPForewords by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Stefanos Polyzoides

T2

T1

T3

T4

T5

T6

Civic

EROUTE66

E BUTLERAVE

NBEAVER

ST

INTERSTATE

40

SMILTONRD

NLEROUX

ST

NPINE

CLIFFDR

NSAN

FRANCISCO

ST

W BIRCH AVE

N THORPERD

NBONITO

ST

W ASPEN AVE

NSWITZER

CANYONDR

W CHERRY AVE

SBABBITT

DR

NAZTE

CST

EDAVID

DR

KNOLESDR

NTURQUOISE

DR

W BEAL RD

NHUMPHREYS

ST

SO'LE

ARYST

SSANFRANCISCOST

SBEAVER

ST

W ELM AVE

E CHERRY AVE

W CLAY AVE

E FRANKLIN AVE

NKENDRICK

ST

NNAVA

JODR

WROUTE

66

SLONETREE

RD

NAGASSIZ

ST

SLEROUX

ST

NFORTVALLEY

RD

NLOCUSTST

WCOCONINO

AVE

WKAIBAB

LN

E SAWMILL

RD

W FOREST

AVE

NPARK

ST

E BIRCH AVE

W SANTA FE AVE

EPONDEROSA

PKWY

W PHOENIX AVE

WLOWER

COCONINO

AVE

NVERDE

ST

W RIORDAN RD

W DALE AVE

NBERTRAND

ST

NGEMINI

DR

NSITGREAVES

ST

NROCKRIDGERD

E ASPEN AVE

NMOGOLLON

ST

W BUTLER AVE

E ELM AVE

WCHATEAUDR

W NAVAJO RD

W DUPONT AVE

SWINDSORLN

W OAKAVE

NELDEN

ST

NHOPIDR

NOELLELN

NWESTST

W FINE AVE

E BRANNE

N AVE

E DALE AVE

WMETZWALK

NRIM

DR

W HUNT AVE

SELLIOT

ST

WMARS

HILLRD

SMIKES

PIKE

SSPRING

ST

E COTTAGE AVE

NKINLANIRD

NKITTR

EDGERD

SAGASSIZ

ST

E ELLERY AVE

W SULLIVAN AVE

N FOREST VIEWDR

SVERDEST

NCURLIN

GSMOKEDR

NJAMES

ST

NIZA

BELST

WGRANDCANYON

AVE

W BENTON AVE

EPAYTONWAY

E PHOENIX AVE

NMORIAH

DR

W PIUTE

RD

SFOUNTAINEST

NWILLIAM

RD

W TUCSON AVE

W APACHE RD

E MAPLE

AVE

SPARK

ST

E DUPONT AVE

W TOMBSTONE AVE

SRIVERRUNRD

E ARROWHEAD AVE

W HAVASU

PAIRD

WSUMMITAVE

E MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

W COTTAGE AVE

E FINE AVE

E JACKSO

N DR

NENTERPRISE

RD

EJONNYLP

SCAMBRIDGELN

DESILVA AVE

SELDENST

SHUMPHREYS

ST

NTOLTEC

ST

W TOLCHACO RD

OSBORNE

DR

SBLACKBIRDROOST

SMALPA

ISLN

E HUNTIN

GTON DR

E HILLTO

P AVE

NCENTERST

SSYCAM

OREST

ETERRACE

AVE

SERNESTST

SFLORENCE

ST

E KENSING

TONDR

E BENTON AVE

E APPLEWAY

PAYTONWAY

W ELLERY AVE

E FOREST

AVE

E HUTCHESON DR

NMCMILLA

NRD

E JOHNSO

N AVE

SWALNUT

ST

PINON

CT

SPASEO

DELFLAG

W WHIPPL

E RD

NAPOLLO

WAY

EPAS

EODEL RIO

TORMEY AVE

E PICCADIL

LYDR

MOUNTA

IN VIEWDR

E CRESTV

IEWDR

SWILSON

LN

W WHITIN

G RD

SKINGMAN

ST

E WOODL

ANDDR

S BRANNEN CIR

NHEMLOCKWAY

W COLUMBUS AVE

SSEVILLE

LN

NCHARLESRD

NMANZANITA

WAY

SCALLE

REPOSA

N CLARK

CIR

E ASHURS

T AVE

MCCREA

RY

ESHERWOOD

LN

NEVERGREENDR

SWITZE

R DR

SMARICOPA

ST

NOTTO

DR

W HOGAN

DR

NGEORGEST

NCANYO

NTERRACE

DR

SREGENTST

SGABELST

WMONTVALE

AVE

SBUCKINGHAM

LN

N CIRCLE DR

NLOMALAILN

E HUNT AVE

E CALLE CONTENTA

SPINNACLE

ST

MCMULLEN

CIR

EOLIVINEWAY

SGLOBE

ST

NCONIFE

RRD

NHILLSIDE

ST

ECANYON

VIEWDR

NCIRCLE

VIEWDR

HOSKIN

S AVE

S NOELLE LN

SKENDRICK

ST

W MCMULLEN CIR

SLUMBER

ST

SCOLORADOST

E CHURCH

ILLDR

E BARROW

AVE

E TURNEY DR

NCLEAR

VIEW

DR

NSUNSETDR

W ANDERS

ONRD

GREENBRIAR

LN

E COLUMBUS AVE

STRAIL

OFTHEWOODS

ESTONERIDGEDR

W CEDAR

AVE

E HATCHER DR

W LAVA LN

E TREVOR WAY

EIVYLN

BLOME DR

NKUTCH

DR

NMAGMA

WAY

NHILLTO

PDR

W BASALT

LN

EOLD

CANYON

CT

EJACOB

WAY

WDEANNA

DR

E RUSS WAY

SCARRIAGELN

E MCCRAC

KENST

E HELEN WAY

E CHUBS WAY

E MAKAYLA WAY

SLONETREERD

SBEAVERST

NAZTEC

ST

WROUTE

66

T2

T1

T3

T4

T5

T6

Civic

E ROUTE

66

E BUTLER AVE

NBEAVERST

INTERSTATE40

SMILTON

RD

NLEROUXST

NPINE

CLIFFDR

NSANFRANCISCO

ST

W BIRCH AVE

N THORPE RD

NBONITO

ST

W ASPEN AVE

NSW

ITZERCANYONDR

W CHERRY AVE

SBABBITTDR

NAZTEC

ST

EDAVID

DR

KNOLES

DR

NTURQUOISEDR

W BEAL RD

NHUMPHREYSST

SO'LE

ARYST

SSAN

FRANCISCO

ST

SBEAVER

ST

W ELM AVE

E CHERRY AVE

W CLAY AVE

E FRANKLIN AVE

NKENDRICKST

NNAVAJO

DR

WROUTE66

SLONETREERD

NAGASSIZ

ST

SLEROUXST

NFORTVALLE

YRD

NLOCUSTST

W COCONINO

AVE

WKAI

BABLN

E SAWMILL RD

W FOREST AVE

NPARKST

E BIRCH AVE

W SANTA FE AVE

EPONDEROSAPKW

Y

W PHOENIX AVEW

LOWER

COCONI

NOAVE

NVERDEST

WRIORDAN

RD

W DALE AVE

NBERTRAND

ST

N GEMINI D

R

NSITGREAVESST

NROCKRIDGE

RD

E ASPEN AVE

NMOGOLLONST

W BUTLER AVE

E ELM AVE

W CHATEA

U DR

W NAVAJO RD

W DUPONT AVE

SWINDSOR

LN

W OAK AVE

NELDENST

NHOPIDR

NOELLE

LN

NWESTST

W FINE AVE

E BRANNEN AVE

E DALE AVE

WMETZWALK

NRIM

DR

W HUNT AVE

SELL

IOTST

WMARSHILL

RD

SMIK

ESPIK

E

SSPRING

ST

E COTTAGE AVE

NKINLANIRD

NKITTREDGE

RD

SAGASSIZ

ST

E ELLERY AVE

W SULLIVAN AVE

NFOREST

VIEWDR

SVERDE

ST

NCURLIN

GSMOKE

DR

NJAM

ESST

NIZABELST

W GRAND CANY

ON AVE

W BENTON AVE

EPAYTON

WAY

E PHOENIX AVE

NMORIAH

DR

W PIUTE RD

SFOUNTAINE

ST

NWILLIAM

RD

W TUCSON AVE

W APACHE RD

E MAPLE AVE

SPARKST

E DUPONT AVE

W TOMBSTONE AVE

SRIVER

RUN

RD

EARROWHEAD

AVE

W HAVASUPAI RD

W SUMMIT AVE

EMOUNTAIN

VIEWAVE

W COTTAGE AVE

E FINE AVE

E JACKSON DR

NENTERPRISERD

EJONNYLP

SCAMBRIDGE

LN

DESILVA AVE

SELDEN

ST

SHUMPHREYSST

NTOLTECST

WTOLCHACO

RD

OSBORNEDR

SBLACKBIRD

ROOST

SMALPAIS

LN E HUNTINGTON DR

E HILLTOP AVE

NCENTER

ST

SSYCAMOREST

ETER

RACEAVE

SERNESTST

SFLO

RENCEST

E KENSINGTON DR

E BENTON AVE

E APPLE WAY

PAYTON

WAY

W ELLERY AVE

E FOREST AVE

E HUTCHESON DR

NMCMILLA

NRD

E JOHNSON AVE

SWALNUTST

PINON CT

SPASEODELFLAG

W WHIPPLE RD

NAPOLLOWAY

E PASEO DEL RIO

TORMEY AVE

E PICCADILLY DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW DR

E CRESTVIEW DR

SWILS

ONLN

W WHITING RD

SKINGMANST

E WOODLAND DR

SBRANNEN

CIR

NHEMLOCK

WAY

W COLUMBUS AVE

SSEVILLE

LN

N CHARLES

RD

NMANZANITA

WAY

SCALLE

REPOSA

N CLARK CIR

E ASHURST AVE

MCCREARY

ESHERW

OODLN

NEVERGREEN

DR

SWITZER DR

SMARICOPA

ST

NOTTO

DR

W HOGAN DR

NGEORGE

ST

NCANYON

TERRACEDR

SREGENTST

SGABELST

W MONTVALE

AVE

SBUCKINGHAM

LN

NCIRCLE

DR

NLOMALAILN

E HUNT AVE

ECALLE

CONTENTA

SPIN

NACLE

ST

MCMULLENCIR

EOLIVINE

WAY

SGLOBEST

NCONIFER

RD

NHILLSIDEST

ECANYONVIEW

DR

NCIRCLE

VIEWDR

HOSKINS AVE

SNOELLE

LN

SKENDRICKST

W MCMULLEN CIR

SLUMBERST

SCOLORADO

ST

E CHURCHILL DR

E BARROW AVE

ETURNEY

DR

NCLEAR

VIEW

DR

NSUNSETDR

W ANDERSON RD

GREEN

BRIAR

LN

E COLUMBUS AVE

STRAIL

OFTHE

WOODS

E STONE

RIDGE

DR

W CEDAR AVE

EHATCHER

DR

W LAVA LN

ETREVOR

WAY

EIVYLN

BLOME DR

NKUTCH

DR

NMAGMAWAY

NHILLT

OPDR

W BASALT LN

EOLDCANYONCT

EJACO

BWAY

W DEANNADR

ERUSS

WAY

SCARRIAGE

LN

E MCCRACKEN ST

EHELEN

WAY

ECHUBS

WAY

EMAKAYLA

WAY

SLONETREE

RD

SBEAVER

ST

NAZTECST

WROUTE

66

0 200' 400'

1 Acre¼ Acre

Regulating PlanFlagstaff, Arizona

October 9, 2009

© C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 8

Opticos Des ign, Inc.

1285 G i lman Stree t

Berkeley, CA 94706

510 - 558 - 6957

0 200' 400'

Opticos Des ign, Inc.

2100 Milvia St, Ste 125

Berkeley, CA 94704

p: 5 1 0 . 5 5 8 . 6 9 5 7

f: 5 1 0 . 8 9 8 . 0 8 0 1

w: opticosdesign.com

1A multi-disciplinary team that achieves great results

Who We Are

2

Opticos Design, Inc. 3a-1

If we are honored to be selected, Opticos Design, Inc. will lead the project. Opticos first gained national recognition for their place-based approach to zoning, now called Form-Based Coding. Opticos’ Principals Karen Parolek and Daniel Parolek co-authored the first comprehensive book on the topic called, “Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers,” which was one of Planetizen’s top 10 planning books of 2008; they helped found the Form-Based Codes Institute, a zoning think tank that teaches introductory to advanced coding courses across the country. Over the past nine years, Opticos has been expanding this innovative approach to include community character-based hybrid approaches to citywide code writing and the integration of sustainability components. This work started with one of the country’s first hybrid codes, for Grass Valley, California in 2005 and more recently was used for Livermore and Kingsburg, California, Flagstaff and Mesa, Arizona, Cincinnati, Ohio, and the multi-jurisdictional code for three municipalities in Beaufort County, South Carolina. All of these projects included hard to use, out-of-date zoning codes as a

starting point, unique aspects of community character that were important to reinforce and protect, and the challenge of building support for, and the understanding of, the benefits of a major zoning and mapping change.

We have composed a team that combines national expertise with the necessary innovation and experience to create an effective, place-specific code and process, as well as local team members that will ground the process with their in-depth knowledge of the place, the people, the culture, and the politics of Austin. Fregonese Associates (FA) is on board to take both the code diagnosis and code regulations to a new level of testing using their Envision Tomorrow software. Peter Park is part of the team to utilize his in-depth knowledge as Planning Director of Milwaukee and most recently Denver where he completed a successful citywide zoning code update process. The local team will be coordinated by McCann Adams Studio (MAS), which has extensive planning and urban design experience, and will also include Cultural Strategies and Group Solutions to provide a well branded, clearly communicated and effective civic engagement strategy. This team is the perfect

TEAM’S STRUCTURECity of Austin

Household

Affordability

ECONorthwest Abe Farkas

Traffic &

Transportation Engineering

Kimley-Horn & Associates Kurt Schulte

Land

Development & Planning

Fregonese Associates

John Fregonese

RCLCO Todd La Rue

Architecture

& Visualization Services

Opticos Design Daniel Parolek

Taniguchi Architects

Alan Taniguchi

Urban Design & Landscape Architecture


McCann Adams Jana McCann

Urban Planning


Lisa Wise Consulting Lisa Wise

Peter Park Consulting Peter Park

McGuireWoods Dan Slone

Civil &

Environmental Engineering

Urban Design Group

Laura Toups

Project Lead

Opticos Design

Daniel Parolek, Principal Project Principal

Stefan Pellegrini, Principal Project Professional

John Miki, Associate Project Manager

Public Information

Services & Community Engagement

Cultural Strategies Armando Rayo

Group Solutions Robena Jackson

Code Outreach

© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |

TEAM’S STRUCTURE

3

© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 4

Opticos Design

1. Clients come to us for innovation

2. Winner of national design and coding

awards: CNU Charter Awards, Making

Cities Livable, Octavia Boulevard

Housing Competition

3. National thought leaders in Form-Based

Coding and Citywide Hybrid Codes

4. Winner of 2 Driehuas Form-Based

Code Awards

5. Recent Coding Efforts:

1. Cincinnati Citywide FBC

2. Beaufort County Hybrid Code

3. Flagstaff, AZ Hybrid Code

Form-Based Codes

A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers

Daniel G. Parolek, AIA • Karen Parolek • Paul C. Crawford, FAICPForewords by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Stefanos Polyzoides

2 Compact and Connected Neighborhoods with Diverse Housing

3Understanding and Building Upon the DNA of Austin Neighborhoods

5

© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 6Beaufort County Multi-Jurisdictional Form-Based Code© 2010 Opticos Design, Inc.

July 19th, 2010

Walkable Urbanism Place Types

Up LandsLow Lands

Rura

lU

rban

Rural Crossroads

Hamlet

Village

City

Town

Different Neighborhoods Require Different Solutions

Beaufort County, South Carolina Multi-Jurisdictional Code: Place Types


Creating a Form and Community Character Framework

7

Understanding (Months 1 to 8)

Listening & EducationDesign Listening Sessions

Coding 101 & Best Practices

Code Diagnosis

Project Kick-Off

Community Character & Scenario Baselines


Thriving Re-Urbanization as a Goal for 42 NeighborhoodsGeographic Principles | 91

Walnut Hills

Oakley

Corryville

Roselawn

Hartwell

Northside

Carthage

Clifton

East Price Hill

Clifton Heights

College Hill

OTR Main Street

Madisonville

West EndOTR Vine Street

Mt. Washington

East Walnut Hills

West Price Hill (B)

Hyde Park

Westwood (A)North Avondale

Mt. Airy

Pleasant Ridge

Evanston (B)

West Price Hill (A) Columbia Tusculum

Kennedy Heights

O'Bryonville

Hyde Park East

Mt. Lookout

Avondale (A)Avondale (B)

Bond Hill

Evanston (A)Camp Washington

Lower Price Hill

Mt. Adams

Westwood (B)

Downtown

I-75

I-71

I-74 SR 562

I-275

I-471

HIG

HW

AY RA

MP

I-75

I-75

RIVER

REA

DIN

G

COLUMBIA

GLEN

WAY

KELLOG

G

6TH

CO

LERAIN

CEN

TRAL

GILBER

T

MO

NTG

OM

ERY

HA

MIL

TON

PAD

DO

CK

EASTERN

7TH

9TH

SEYMOUR

ELM

LINW

OO

D

VIN

E

PETE ROSE

RIVE

RSID

E

BEECHMONT

MEHRING

CA

RTHA

GE

3RD

EDW

ARD

S

PLUM

STATE

SMITH

5TH

LUD

LOW

AVENU

E

EDMONDSON

VIN

E

SMITH

VIN

E

BEECHMONT

READ

ING

CEN

TRAL

VINE

ERIE

MADISON

8TH

QUEEN CITY

HARRISON

DANA

WIN

TON

MCMILLAN

DEL

TA

STAT

E

VICTORY

BEEKM

AN

MITCHELL

5TH

SPRIN

G GRO

VE

RIDG

E

MONTANA

WILLIAM H TAFT

ROSS

DELHI

SEYMOUR

WESTWOOD NORTHERN

DA

LTO

N

3RD

RED

BAN

K

LUD

LOW

CLI

FTO

N

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR

MA

IN

HOPPLE

LANGDON FARM

WIN

CH

ELL

CARLL

SALEM

MA

RBU

RG

NORTH BEND

WEST FORK

GALBRAITH

WES

TERN

TOWNSHIP

SYCA

MO

RE

TOR

RENC

E

9TH

WESTERN HILLS

FREE

MA

N

CU

MM

INS

CLEVES WARSAW

CO

LERAIN

AVENU

E

BAN

NIN

G

CA

MA

RGO

JEFFE

RSO

N

GALBRAITH

SPRING

GRO

VE

NORTH BEND

HARRISON

GALBRAITH

SALEM

NORTH BEND

VINE

RID

GE

ESTE

8TH

KIR

BY

GEST

WERK

HILLSIDE

BOU

DIN

OT

EASTERN WIL

MER

GRAY

4TH

BALTIM

ORE

DA

LY

CLI

FTO

N

BURN

ET

FOREST

QUEB

EC

MEHRING

WO

OST

ER

BRAMBLE

ROSS

GR

AN

D

CENTER HILL

MCHENRY

RAPID RUN

RAC

E

CORBLY

WEST FO

RK

SUN

SET

WARSAW

ERIE

LINCOLN

BROTHERTON

ROBERTSON

VIC

TORY

ARG

US

ANTHONY WAY

NE

TENNESSEE

GROESBECK

LIN

N

SECTION

WH

ETSE

L

AU

BUR

N

FOLEY

ELBE

RON

MCALPIN

EUC

LID

ELMORE

PLAIN

VILLE

BURN

EY

3RD

LOSANTIVILLE

SUM

MIT

DA

LTON

MARKBREIT

WO

OD

BUR

N

ASH

TREE

TOWNE

WOOLPER

OVE

RLO

OK

PED

RETT

I

PARK

EDW

ARD

S

JEFFERSON

MITC

HELL

DUCK CREEK

STANLEY

KEM

PER

SETT

LE

MONTANA

SUTTO

N

RED BANK

EDEN

PARK

JESSUP

SHEP

HERD

ROSEM

ON

T

ERKENBRECHER

PHYL

LIS

FRAN

CIS

BERKSHIRE

SHEP

HER

D C

REEK

FOLEY

LIN

N EDEN

PARK

DUCK CREEK

SUTT

ON

KEM

PER

CLI

FTO

N

SUMMIT

FOLEY

SUTT

ON

SUTT

ON

µ0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25

Miles

Legend

Neighborhood Centers

Evolve

Maintain

Transform

Compact Walkable Half Mile

Cincinnati Municipal Boundary

River

St. Bernard

ElmwoodPlace

Norwood

Anderson Twp

Springfield Twp

NeighborhoodCenter

Degree of Change

Sayler Park

RIVER

HILLSID

E

OTR Main StreetOTR Vine Street

Downtown

I-71

I-75

HIG

HW

AY RA

MP

I-75

7TH

9TH

ELM

CEN

TRAL PETE ROSE

MEHRING

GIL

BERT

3RD

6TH

PLUM

READ

ING

SMITH

5TH

COLUMBIA

BROA

DW

AY

EZZARD CHARLES

CENTRAL

PLUM

VINE

5TH

6TH

3RD

MA

IN

SYCA

MO

RE

LIBERTY

9TH

PETE ROSE

BROA

DW

AY

BROA

DW

AY

5TH

4TH

RAC

E

WA

LNU

T

EGGLESTON

MEHRING

PIKE

SYCA

MO

RE

6TH

ArlingtonHts

Plan Cincinnati Growth Framework Map and Form-Based Code Priority Areas

C . 4

Building a Solid Foundation

Documenting the DNA of Cincinnati

C i t yw ide Fo rm-Ba sed Code Cha r r e t t e : S umma r y Repo r t | C i n c i nna t i , OHOp t i co s De s i gn , I n c . © 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |

Extracting the DNA to Inform the Code

9


Basing Zones on Form not Uses: Protecting the Character

10

T5 Flex (T5F)

Small Footprint Urban Neighborhood Zone

Cincinnati Form-Based Code

CHAPTER 4 SHAPING AUSTIN: BUILDING THE COMPLETE COMMUNITY | 103

Map Disclaimers: A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries. This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does

been produced by the Planning and Development Review Department for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is

Figure 4.5 Growth Concept Map


Centers and Activity Corridors as Priority


Incentivizing Missing Middle Housing: Key to Code Success

12

Missing Middle Housing: Responding to the Demand for Walkable Urban Living

By Daniel ParolekThe mismatch between current US housing stock and shifting demographics, combined with the growing demand for walkalble urban living, has been poignantly defined by recent research and publications by the likes of Christopher Nelson and Chris Leinberger and most recently by the Urban Land Institute’s publication, What’s Next: Real Estate in the New Economy. Now it is time to stop talking about the problem and start generating immediate solutions! Are you ready to be part of the solution?

Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as adding more multi-family housing stock using the dated models/types of housing that we have been building. Rather, we need a complete paradigm shift in the way that we design, locate, regulate, and develop homes. As What’s Next states, “it’s a time to rethink and evolve, reinvent and renew.” Missing Middle housing types, such as duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, mansion apartments, and live-work units, are a critical part of the solution and should be a part of every architect’s, planner’s, real estate agent’s, and developer’s arsenal.

Diagram of missing middle housing types illustrating the range of types and their location between single-family homes and mid-rise buildings

Well-designed, simple Missing Middle housing types achieve medium-density yields and provide high-quality, marketable options between the scales of single-family homes and mid-rise flats for walkable urban living. They are designed to meet the specific needs of shifting demographics and the new market demand and are a key component to a diverse neighborhood. They are classified as “missing” because very few of these housing types have been built since the early 1940’s due to regulatory constraints, the shift to auto-dependent patterns of development, and the incentivization of single-family home ownership.

The following are defining characteristics of Missing Middle housing:

A walkable context

Probably the most important characteristic of these types of housing is that they need to be built within an existing or newly created walkable urban context. Buyers or renters of these housing types are choosing to trade larger suburban housing for less space, no yard to maintain, and proximity to services and amenities such as restaurants, bars, markets, and often work. Linda Pruitt of the Cottage Company, who is building creative bungalow courts in the Seattle area, says the first thing her potential customers ask is, “What can I walk to?” So this criteria becomes very important in her selection of lots and project areas, as is it for all Missing Middle housing.

Medium density but lower perceived densities. As a starting point, these building types typically range in density from 16 dwelling units/acre (du/acre) to up to 35 du/acre, depending on the building type and lot size. It is important not to get too caught up in the density numbers when thinking about these types. Due to the small footprint of the building types and the fact that they are usually mixed with a variety of building types, even on an individual block, the perceived density is usually quite lower–they do not look like dense buildings.

A combination of these types gets a neighborhood to a minimum average of 16 du/acre. This is important because this is generally used as a threshold at which an environment becomes transit-supportive and main streets with neighborhood-serving, walkable retail and services become viable.

Small footprint and blended densities: As mentioned above, a common characteristic of these housing types are small- to medium-sized building footprints. The largest of these types, the mansion apartment or side-by-side duplex, may have a typical main body width of about 40-50ft, which is very comparable to a large estate home. This makes them ideal for urban infill, even in older neighborhoods that were originally developed as single-family but have been designated to evolve with slightly higher intensities. As a good example, a courtyard housing


Responding to the Demand for Multi-Generational Housing

Main Unit

Street Fronting Porch

Unit 2

Unit 3(Above Garage)

Garage

Shared Courtyard

Flex Space: Parking/

Courtyard

Multi-Generational HouseOpticos Design, Inc.

© Opticos Design, Inc. 2012

3 Preserving Neighborhood Character

3

Knowing the “Stories” and Completing Them

14


Understanding Existing Character & Stories Behind Code

15Livermore, CA Development Code Update: Driehaus Form-Based Code Winner


Illustrating What is Allowed by the Current Code



Writing a Code to Ensure a Happier Ending to the Story



Creating an Effective Tool for Regulating Corridors


Transitions into Neighborhoods from Corridors

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

1

2

3

4

Max.

ROW / Property Line Building ROW / Property Line BuildingKey Key

C. High-Rise/Mid-Rise Buildings in T5MSF/T5N

Front/Side Street Setback

Floors 6+ 10' min.

Side Setback

Abutting T6/T5/T4

Floors 1-5 0' min.

Floors 6-8 10' min.

Floors 9+ 30' min.

Abutting T3

Floors 1-5 10' min.

Floors 6-8 20' min.

Floors 9+ 30' min.

Rear Setback

Abutting T6/T5/T4

Floors 1-5 10' min.

Floors 6-8 20' min.

Floors 9+ 30' min.

Abutting T3

Floors 1-2 10' min.

Floors 3-5 20' min.

Floors 6+ 30' min.

N

O

P

Q

O

P

Q

O

P

Q

R

S

T

D. Mid-Rise Buildings in T4MS

Front/Side Street Setback

Floors 4+ 10' min.

Side Setback

Floors 1-3 0' min.

Floors 4+ 10' min.

Rear Setback

Abutting T6/T5/T4

Floors 1-3 10' min.

Floors 4+ 20' min.

Abutting T3

Floors 1-2 10' min.

Floor 3 20' min.

Floors 4+ 30' min.

U

V

W

V

W

X

Y

Z

Fron

t/Si

de S

tree

t

Fron

t/Si

de S

tree

t

Side

/Rea

r

Side

/Rea

r

Rea

r

Rea

r

N

U

O

R V X

T

Q

S

Z

Y

W

P

59-31

Chapter 59: Building Type StandardsFinal Draft: April 2012


Transitions into Neighborhoods from Corridors

20


Multi-Day Workshops to Vet Concepts and Scenarios

21

Summary of Major Meetings and Outreach Opportunities

Presentation for Approval of Annotated Outline and Cartoon of Code to CC (June 2014)

Committee

Branding & Webpage Goes Live

Multi-Day Public WorkshopCommittee

Multi-Day Public Workshop

4 Environmental Protection

3

Context-Based Sustainability

22

South 23rd Street

Incorporating sustainability in ancillary unit design2012 APA National Conference-Los Angeles, CA © 2012 Opticos Design, Inc. |

T3: Sustainability Overlay to Inform Form-Based Code

16

Flow through treatment planter

Lot Treament Rain Garden

No External Hose BibsNo Irrigation Except by Rain Barrel or Reused Water

Urban Farming

Compost Bins

Strategic Shading

Passive Heating fromSouth-Facing Glazing-CrossVentilation Cools as Needed

In!ltration Where Sub-Surfaces Allow It

Shield Winter Winds from the Northwest in Outdoor spaces

Greenway as aStormwater CaputreConveyance & Treatment Feature

Solar LightingAlong Greenway

Utilize Summer Winds from the Southeast toPassively Cool Buildings

Tuesday, April 24, 2012Richmond Livable Corridors 71

Sustainability and Urban Agriculture in Different Contexts


D

E

A

C

G

J

K

I

C

D

A E

G

I

D

E

A

C

G

J

K

I

5 Household Affordability

3

Preserving Diverse Neighborhoods

24


1. Make entitlement process quicker and

more predictable

2. Encourage “affordable by design”

housing/lot types

3. Remove barriers for compatible infill

4. Incentivize small buildings for

compatibility and feasibility

5. Incentivize small units to enable

residents to build equity

6. Rethink open space requirements in

walkable urban areas

7. Reduce on site parking requirements

8. Do not require guest parking

9. Encourage detaching parking cost from

units 25

Ways to Integrate Affordable Housing into a Code

Update image

Refine list


Only $23,000 Household Income Needed to Qualify

20 dwelling units/acre

Richmond Livable Corridors: Richmond, CA


Utilizing Envision Tomorrow to Assess Affordability

6 Creating a Clear, User Friendly Code

3

Usability as a Primary Focus

28

Chapter 10-10

Chapter 10-20

Chapter 10-30

Chapter 10-40

Chapter 10-50

Chapter 10-60

Chapter 10-70

Chapter 10-80

Chapter 10-90

Appendices

the architectural vernacular ,md DNA that FlagstafPs residents and visitors value. The macro-scale analysis also became a valuable tool to discuss the future fi'amework of the city within the regional phuUling process that was also in progTess.

Once the focus area was established, a detailed micro-scale analysis was completed by city staff and vohmteers. The aim was to gain a more fine-grained tmderstanding of the selected area ,md to calibrate the mban-to-rural U'ansect for F lagstaff.

T his review and analysis led to the de-telll1ination dlat the new code would be a hybrid one using dle sU'ucture of a form-based code as dle framework while seam-lessly incorporating conventional Euclidean zarung tools. One of dle challenges was to determine if the supplemental regulations, which apply to dle conventional zoning ar-eas, would also need to apply to d1e form-based code areas.

A d10rough assessment of dle supple-mental st,mdards such as parking, lighting, landscaping, and specific uses was completed to ensme dlat d1at d1ey would not compro-ITllse the form-based code. It was fmmd d1at

28 I Planning February 2012

ANALYZING THE TABLE OF CONTENTS Preamble

Title, Pu rpose, and Ju risdiction

Includes an explanation of Flagstaff's different types of places, an introduction to the urban-to-rural transect, and an overview of what a FBC is, and how to use the code.

Establishes the purpose of the code and its authority under state law.

Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement Includes all proced ures for the application of the code.

General to All General requirements that might apply to all zones citywide, including heritage preservation, affordable housing, and site planning design standards.

Specific to Zones Includes overl ay, non-transect, and transect zones, and the standards and uses specific to each zone.

Supplemental to Zones Specific su pplementary regulations, including building types, frontage types, landscaping, sign, resou rce protection, outdoor light ing, and parking standards.

Specific to Thoroughfares Establishes standards for thoroughfare design applicable only in the transect zones.

Specifi c to Civic Spaces Establishes standards for the design of civic spaces applicable in transect and non-transect zones.

Definitions and Terms and Uses

Maps

many of these standards are effective in sub-urban areas but are less applicable in existing or intended urban areas where form-based codes would apply.

USING A NEW CODE FRAMEWORK Considerable thought went into creating a new table of contents for a hybrid code d1at carefully wove together dle two systems of zoning germane to Flagstaff. To achieve dus goal, the table of contents uses a form-based code fi'amework with certain components (as defined by dle Form-Based Codes 11-stitute) defining d1e primaty sections of d1e document. Tlus orgaIuzation is what makes d1e F lagstaff hybrid code so different. Un-Like other hybrid approaches in wluch d1e FBC is all exception widun an otherwise conventional zorling code fi'amework, the Flagstaff code defaul ts to waLkable urbanism and makes drivable suburban development the exception. It is also sU'uctured fi'OI11 d1e broad to dle specific, as explained in the table above.

Because of d1e hybrid form of d1e code, Chapter 10-50, Supplemental to Zones, took special attention. Each of the regulations in

The terms defined in the code, illustrated as needed.

Includes all maps referenced in the code.

Not adopted into the code, the appendices provide useful supplementary information.

dus section were carefully studied and it was detemuned whether they would apply just to d1e U'ansect zone aI'eas, just d1e non-U'ansect zone areas, or both to ensure d1ese standards did not compronuse dle FBC intent.

The m·ban-to-ll.lral u'ansect was d1e or-ganizing principle chosen for the FEC, wid1 T6 being d1e highest zone that appLies to d1e downtown core. Due to d1e complexi ties of applying d1e u'ansect zones to bod1 exist-ing developed areas and greenfield devel-opment, d1e T3 and T4 u'ansect zones are broken down into T3N.l, T3N.2, T4N.l, andT4N.2.

The T3N.l and T4N.l desigmtions ap-ply primarily to existing areas, d1e T3N.2 and T4N.2 to new neighborhoods. In ad-dition, an "open" classification was added to some U'ansect zones, for example T4N.2-0, to define dle areas where d1e same physi-cal form was intended in a T4N.2 zone, but where a more open or fl exible range of uses are allowed.

This definition is appropriate in areas where mLxeduse main sU'eets u'ansition into neighborhoods. m this application, primar-ily because of Arizona's Proposition 207

• •

How one city overhauled its zoning code while combining form-based and conventional elements.

By Roger E. Eastman, AICP, with Daniel Parolek and Lisa Wise

LAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, entered an exclusive club in

November. It is now one of the few cities in the U.S.

that have adopted a hybrid zoning ordinance with

both fom1-based components and conventional Eu-

clidean elements as part of a complete code rewrite.

"Simplified, streamlined, predictable" raved an edito-

rial in the Arizona Daily Sun while praising both the

code and the process used to adopt it. Getting the

new code adopted wasn't easy, but many city residents

think the effort will be repaid in a more efficient, more equitable, and

easier-to-use zoning system. The adoption of the new zoning code

also caps off a successful public engagement process that has changed

the generally negative perception of city plaImers.

TIME FOR AN UPDATE An im.portant first step in approaching a new code W,1S differentiating between what Clu'istopher Leinberger caBs "walkable ur-ban" areas from "drivable suburb,m" areas (Tbe Option ofUrbrl7Zism, Island Press, 2008). By making this distinction, Flagstaff could apply a form-based code in the walkable areas of the city wIllie genera By leaving the existing conventional code in place in the drivable suburban areas.

Thus, a new u'ansect-based hybrid code resulted that defaults to promoting and al-lowing for walkable urbanism wIllie seam-lessly incorporating refined yet otherwise conventional Euclidean zoning tools for the drivable suburban areas. Because the regula-tions for the two different types of areas are not muddled together, the form-based code could be kept intact-and development op-poruU1ities could emerge in a manner con-sistent with the city's general plan.

Flagstaff (pop. 62,000), at an elevation of about 7,000 feet, is the regional hub of northern Arizona. Established as a stop on the early u'anscontinental railway in 1882 and later Route 66 and Interstate 40, Flag-staff quickly grew as a logging and ranching town, and as a gateway for tourists visiting the Grand Canyon and other national parks and monuments. Residents appreciate the natural beauty of the area and enjoy outdoor pursuits such as hiking, skiing, hunting, fish-ing, and camping.

T he downtown and oldest neighbor-hoods were plmmed with sm,111 blocks and lots, and today are valued for their historic buildings and inherently walkable urban character. Typical of many American cities, Flagstaffs urban form changed after vVorld vVar IT as auto-oriented suburban develop-ments were' added to tile periphelY of tile city. Until recently Flagstaffs zoning ordi-nances have actively promoted tllese drive-able suburbml development patterns.

The need for a comprehensive update of tile city's land development code had been apparent for some time as developers, con-u'actors, desigll professionals, and residents complained about tile code's complexity and inconsistency. Some even blamed tile CLllll-

bersome namre of tile code for conu'ibuting to the high cost of development and tile fail -ure of big projects and economic develop-ment opporuU1ities.

American Planning Association 25


Usability Starts with a Well-Thought-Out TOC

Instructions TitleCode

Quick Code Guide: Building-Scale Projects

1

2

Step

1703-1-3City of Cincinnati Form-Based Code Public Review Draft: 9/21/12

1703-1.40 Overview and Guide to the Cincinnati Form-Based Code

Find the transect zone for your parcel

Maps

Comply with the standards speci!c to your zone

1703-2Speci!c to Transect Zones

3Choose and comply with the standards speci!c to your building type

1703-3Speci!c to Building Types

4Choose and comply with the standards speci!c to your frontage type

1703-4Speci!c to Frontage Types

5Comply with the standards general to all transect zones

1703-5Supplemental to Transect Zones

6Follow the procedures and comply with the requirements for permit application

1703-9Administration and Procedures

7

If you want to subdivide your property, follow the procedures and comply with the requirements in Subdivision

Subdivision and Land Development


Usability and Graphic Clarity Throughout the Code

NBEAVER

ST

NLEROUX

ST

NSAN

FRANCISCO

ST

W BIRCH AVE

W ASPEN AVE

W CHERRY AVE

NHUMPHREYS

ST

SBEAVER

ST

E CHERRY AVE

NKENDRICK

ST

NAGASSI Z

ST

E BIRCH AVE

W SANTA FE AVE

W PHOENIX AVE

W DALE AVE

E ASPEN AVE

E DALE AVE

SMIKES

PIKE

E COTTAGE AVE

E PHOENIX AVE

W COTTAGE AVE


10-40.40.080

10-74 Flagstaff Zoning Code

T4 Neighborhood 2 (T4N.2) Standards

D. Building Placement

Setback (Distance from ROW/Property Line)

Front1 5' min.; 12' max.

Front facade within area 50% min.

Side Street/Civic Space 10' min.; 15' max.

Side2 3' min.

Rear 3' min.

Front 20' min.

Side 0' min.; 3' max.

Rear 3' min.1 Setback may match an existing adjacent building as

follows. The building may be set to align with the facade

of the frontmost immediately adjacent property, for a

width no greater than that of the adjacent property's

facade that encroaches into the minimum setback.2No side setback required between townhouse and/or

live/work building types.

Miscellaneous

street or courtyard façade.

individual entries.

A

B

C

D

E. Building Form3

Height

Stories 4 Stories max.

40' max.

52' max.

2 Stories max.

18' max.

28' max.

Ground Floor Finish Level 18" min. above

sidewalk

Ground Floor Ceiling 9' min. clear

Upper Floor(s) Ceiling 8' min. clear3 See Division

additional building form regulations.

Footprint

space along primary street

frontage

30' min.

Lot Coverage 80% max.

Miscellaneous

E

F

G

H

Street

Building Setback Line

Building Area

Facade Area

Key

Street

D

Side

Str

eet

H

GAmin.

Amax.

Bmin.

Bmax.

C

F

E

Our Codes Have Become the Benchmark for Usability

31

10-40.40.080








Side2 3' min.

Rear 3' min.

Front 20' min.








Miscellaneous


individual entries.

A

B

C

D

E. Building Form3

Height


40' max.

52' max.

2 Stories max.

18' max.

28' max.


sidewalk




Footprint


frontage

30' min.


Miscellaneous

E

F

G

H

Street


Building Area

Facade Area

Key

Street

D

Side

Str

eet

H

GAmin.

Amax.

Bmin.

Bmax.

C

F

E

10-40.40.080








Side2 3' min.

Rear 3' min.

Front 20' min.








Miscellaneous


individual entries.

A

B

C

D

E. Building Form3

Height


40' max.

52' max.

2 Stories max.

18' max.

28' max.


sidewalk




Footprint


frontage

30' min.


Miscellaneous

E

F

G

H

Street


Building Area

Facade Area

Key

Street

D

Side

Str

eet

H

GAmin.

Amax.

Bmin.

Bmax.

C

F

E

7 Welcome and Celebrate Austin’s Diversity

3Armando Rayo, Cultural Strategies

Connect, Equip, Mobilize

32

TEAM CAPABILITIES

MARKETING & ADVERTISING

• Research & Insights

• Brand Development

• Media Planning/Buying

• Custom Content

• Creative

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

• Research & Assessment

• Community Relations

• Earned Media Placement

• Stakeholder Outreach

INTERACTIVE & SOCIAL MEDIA

• Platform Development

• Strategy & Implementation

• Campaign Management

• Analytics Reporting

• SEO & SEM

PUBLIC RELATIONS

• Communications Plans

• Advocacy & Professional Relations

• Campaign Management

Cultural Strategies is a marketing and communications firm that provides cultural insights, effective marketing concepts, and public engagement strategies that resonate with a multi-cultural America.

“Beyond outreach,

engagement includes people in the process.”

CertificationsInternational Association for Public Participation (IAP2)

City of Austin Certified Minority-Owned Business Enterprise (MBE)

Public InvolvementCommunity-based Research Community Events

Related Projects

ARMANDO RAYO

Expertise: Community Engagement & Social Innovation

DIANE MILLER

Expertise: Civic Engagement & Community Planning Management

ROBENA JACKSON

Expertise: Public Involvement & Communications

MARK YZNAGA

Expertise: Public Policy Development & Community Decision-making

TEAM PROFILE

Project Involvement:

• Airport Boulevard Form-Based Code Transportation Study

• Central Health - Dove Springs

• United Way – Hands on Central Texas

• Austin Independent School District


• Imagine Austin

• Envision Central Texas

• IAP2 Practitioner

• Congress for New Urbanism


• Imagine Austin

• CAMPO

• Capital Metro

• Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority

• Austin Water Utility


• Imagine Austin

• Envision Central Texas

• Create Austin

The Cultural Strategies Engagement Team for the Land Development Code represents a collaboration of public engagement experts with deep connections to Austin.

Build relationships thatinvite participation and grow social capital

Develop and share toolkits and messaging collateral with campaign ambassadors

Provide stakeholders pathways that move people to action

Relevance• Understand culture, traditions and history

• Understand an individual’s and community’s aspirations, needs and wants

• Honor, respect and be authentic

Engagement• Utilize culturally relevant messages and

approaches

• Build meaningful connections

• Reflect people’s concerns

• Interact and include community members in the process

• Create Ambassadors

• Engage, not just outreach

Commitment• Be intentional and committed to the long haul

• Show up frequently and when it matters

• Collaborate with multi-cultural organizations and groups

• Equip people with skills, knowledge and abilities

• Utilize community members as leaders

ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

VALUES

Goals• Listen to the community, provide education and identify issues.

– Code 101 and Best Practices

– Design Listening Sessions

– Education Sessions

– Listening Sessions

Deliverables• Code 101 and Best Practices Documents

• Public Participation Plan

• Preliminary “Listening to the Community” Report

• Final “Listening to the Community” Report

PEER-TO-PEER• Ambassador Development• Advocate Recruitment• Education & Dialogue Sessions• Community Potlucks• Visioning Workshops

AUDIENCE IDENTIFICATION• Cultural Segmentation• Socio-economic• Affinity Associations• Leaders (Formal/Informal)• Grassroots• Geospatial Analysis

MESSAGING & BRANDING• Brand Identity Development• Campaign Toolkit• Survey Instruments• Web Presence• Spanish Transcreations

MEDIA• Social Media• Earned & Paid• E-blasts• Neighborhood Newsletters• Partnerships

RESEARCH• In-depth Interviews• Focus Groups• Intercept Interviews• Surveys Online/Offline• Polling

Approach:• Reposition Land Development Code messaging into a “Quality of Life”

discussion

• Build community in the process

Proposed Tactics:• Listening Sessions

• Education Sessions

• Small-group discussions

• Implement engaging visual communication materials that resonate with

audiences

• Community Chats/Platicas

• Develop Ambassador Program

• Text Message Polling

• Develop Advocate Program for Community-based organizations, schools,

and faith-based groups

• Develop photo and video series that documents the community’s visions

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Task: Include under-represented groups in city planning initiative - Latinos, African American, and Asian, faith-based groups and minority-owned businesses.

Campaign Assets: Identity development, website, You tube

Methodology: Video series, photovoice, small group discussions, visioning workshop, stakeholder meetings

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: AIRPORT BOULEVARD FORM-BASED CODE

Task: Create a health movement in Houston on behalf of 10 community health centers

Campaign Assets: Brand development, website, collateral, leadership presentations and education, online tools, earned media

Methodology: Research, messaging, ambassador training, advocate recruitment, community engagement, partnership development

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: HEALTHCARE

8 Efficient & Effective Service Delivery

3Peter Park: Assessing Capacity, Citywide Mapping, Better City and Better Planning

39


Aerial Imagery

Parcel Boundaries

Building Outlines

Field Grid

Assessing Capacity

40


Citywide Mapping

41


Citywide Mapping

42


Building Consensus and Ownership

43

Denver City Council President Chris Nevitt Neighborhood Mapping Session


Alameda Station/Denver Design District

Better Code=Better City & Better Planning

44


New Zoning MapAlameda Station Area Plan Recommendations

Better Code=Better City & Better Planning

45


114 | IMAGINE AUSTIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

46

Summary of Major Meetings and Outreach Opportunities

Understanding (Months 1 to 8)

Exploring (Months 9 to 23)

Implementing (Months 24 to 32)

Administrative Draft (Internal Draft)

Initial Draft (First Public Draft)

Revised Initial Draft (Second Public Draft)

Adoption Draft (First Adoption Draft)

Revised Adoption Draft (Final Adoption Draft)

Listening & EducationDesign Listening Sessions

Education Sessions

Listening Sessions

Coding 101 & Best Practices

Code Diagnosis

Community Character & Scenario Baselines

Annotated Outline

Style Sheet, Code Template & Cartoon of Code Document

Re-Assessment of Scope of Work

Project Kick-Off

Mapping

Scenario Testing & Community Character

Code Adoption

Training & Informational Materials

New Land Development Code

In Use

Presentation for Approval of Annotated Outline and Cartoon of Code to CC (June 2014)

Presentation of Adoption Draft to Steering Committee

Presentation for Adoption of the Land Development Code to CC

Branding & Webpage Goes Live


Public Presentation Introducing Team


Comprehensive Land Development Code Revision for the City of Austin | Interview Presentation © 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 47

Coding for a Compact and Connected Austin

Documents

Transcript of Coding for a Compact and Connected Austin