Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Opticos Design Daniel Parolek
McCann Adams Jana McCann
Urban Planning
Opticos Design Daniel Parolek
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 8
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 11
Centers and Activity Corridors as Priority
© 2012 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Understanding Existing Character & Stories Behind Code
15Livermore, CA Development Code Update: Driehaus Form-Based Code Winner
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Illustrating What is Allowed by the Current Code
16Livermore, CA Development Code Update: Driehaus Form-Based Code Winner
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Writing a Code to Ensure a Happier Ending to the Story
17Livermore, CA Development Code Update: Driehaus Form-Based Code Winner
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 18
Creating an Effective Tool for Regulating Corridors
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Transitions into Neighborhoods from Corridors
20
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 23
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Only $23,000 Household Income Needed to Qualify
20 dwelling units/acre
Richmond Livable Corridors: Richmond, CA
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 27
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 29
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
© 2012 Opticos Design, Inc. | 30
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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
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
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
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
Project Involvement:
• Imagine Austin
• Envision Central Texas
• IAP2 Practitioner
• Congress for New Urbanism
Project Involvement:
• Imagine Austin
• CAMPO
• Capital Metro
• Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority
• Austin Water Utility
Project Involvement:
• 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
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Aerial Imagery
Parcel Boundaries
Building Outlines
Field Grid
Assessing Capacity
40
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Citywide Mapping
41
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Citywide Mapping
42
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Building Consensus and Ownership
43
Denver City Council President Chris Nevitt Neighborhood Mapping Session
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
Alameda Station/Denver Design District
Better Code=Better City & Better Planning
44
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
New Zoning MapAlameda Station Area Plan Recommendations
Better Code=Better City & Better Planning
45
© 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. |
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
Multi-Day Public Workshop
Public Presentation Introducing Team
Multi-Day Public Workshop
Comprehensive Land Development Code Revision for the City of Austin | Interview Presentation © 2013 Opticos Design, Inc. | 47