The document discusses the Orange Code, aimed at streamlining land development processes by improving predictability and reducing bureaucratic complexity. Key initiatives include addressing unwritten rules, creating flexible codes for redevelopment, and enhancing sustainability through context-sensitive development. Public engagement results reveal challenges in current zoning practices, emphasizing the need for innovation in planning and the development of mixed-use standards.

1. DEVELOPER’S FORUM
JUNE 17, 2016

2. INTRODUCTION

3. Today’s Agenda
• Why the Orange Code?
• Scope of the current effort
• Survey results & Discussion
• Approach to the Orange Code
• Invitation for further participation

4. BACKGROUND

5. Why the Orange Code?

6. 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

7. 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

8. Sustainability Plan
• Development that is:
• Context-sensitive
• Walkable & Bike-able
• Infill & Redevelopment
• Transit Oriented
• Transit Ready
• Complete Streets
• Shared Parking
• Historic Preservation
BACKGROUND

9. 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

10. The Existing Code
Assess the existing Land
Development Code
High level of bureaucratic
complexity
Low level of built complexity
BACKGROUND RESEARCH

11. 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

12. Peer Jurisdiction Codes
• Envision Utah
• Beaufort County
• Dona Ana County

13. Public Engagement
• OrangeCodeFL.com
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Developers’ Forums
• Multiple Public workshops
• Expert Panels
• Staff workshops
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT

14. Pilot Codes
• I-Drive Vision and Code
(staff-led)
• TOD Module
• Greenfield Module
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT

15. County-wide Recommendations
• Initial Approach (Year 1)
• Comprehensive Proposals (Year 2-3)
SCOPE OF THE EFFORT

16. SURVEY RESULTS

17. SURVEY RESULTS

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. DISCUSSION

23. Approach to the
Orange Code

24. Approach
• Goals
• Streamlining Objectives
• Sustainability Objectives
• Technical Approach
• Market Areas
• Sector Analysis
• Place Types
• Form-Based Coding as a tool
• Geographic tools
• The Modules

25. 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

26. Planned Developments

27. 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

28. Would you walk here?
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

29. Would you walk here?
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

30. Level of Change
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
Very
High
Ch 38: Zoning
High
Ch 30:
Planning and
Development
Ch 34:
Subdivision
Regulations
Medium
Ch 24:
Landscaping,
Buffering &
Open Space
Ch 31.5: Signs
Low
Ch 19:
Floodplain
Management

31. 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

33. Orange County Future Land Use Map
• APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

34. Zoning Map

35. Orange County Future Land Use Map
• APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

36. Sector Planning
• Big picture of where and
how to grow
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE
DONA ANA

37. 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)

38. 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)

39. Place Types
• Currently calibrating
for Orange County
• Subdivision
Regulations would
vary by Place Type
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

40. Place Types in Utah
APPROACH TO THE ORANGE CODE

41. The Rural to Urban Transect

42. How Character Coding Simplifies

43. Overall Structure
Market Area &
Sector
Market Area 1- Sector X
Place Type Place Type 1 Place Type 2 Place Type 3
Transect Plan
TransectA
TransectB
TransectC
TransectA
TransectB
TransectC
TransectD
TransectB
TransectC
TransectD

44. Miami 21
Before
&
After

45. Auto Sales
Regulating form allows flexibility in uses

46. Before
After

48. • 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.

49. Geographic Approach

50. 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

51. The Modules

52. The Modules
• TOD Module
• Greenfield Module

53. 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

54. DISCUSSION