Orange County Developer's Forum - Orange Code

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