Bringing It All Together

1. Bringing It All Together Illustrative Master Plan Fiscal tools-TIRZ, PID, paid parking, incentives Regulatory tools-zoning, subdivision ordinances

2. What is the Purpose of Phase 2? • Analyze, craft, select, relate, and phase the appropriate implementation tools into a comprehensive action plan that will truly allow the vision and revitalization of the Town Center to be achieved and sustained over time. • Over the last 18 months, Staff and the consultant team have been working on several components for Phase 2: • Inventory of existing land uses & quantification of physical buildout of Phase 1 vision (100% complete) • Market Feasibility Analysis (100% complete) • Comprehensive Parking Analysis, including site feasibility analysis for a parking structure (100% complete) • Downtown Parking Rate Analysis (100% complete) • Development Regulations Analysis and Proposed Improvements (75% complete) • Establishing a Town Center Business Plan, including fiscal tools analysis (TIRZ, PID), developing a coordinated incentives/public-private partnership policy between City/MEDC/MCDC/TIRZ for redevelopment (60% complete)

3. Development Regulations Analysis • 2009: analyzed regulations (zoning, subdivision) that are barriers to realizing the preferred concepts of the vision • Jan 2010: Council work session emphasizing importance of synchronizing public capital investments and development regulations • March 2010: stakeholders public meeting • May 2010: Council work session outlining approach and process by which a new form-based development code would be created to specifically implement the Town Center illustrative master plan • Sept 2010: stakeholders public meeting Purpose of today’s session: present, discuss, and receive feedback on the substantial progress of the form-based development coding effort

4. Today’s Session • History/basics of zoning and subdivision • Form-based code: What is it? • Differences between FBC and conventional zoning/subdivision • Existing zoning and subdivision in McKinney’s Town Center • Progress Report: Drafting a FBC for McKinney’s Town Center • Remaining steps/timeline

5. Today’s Typical Approach toDevelopment Regulation: Conventional Zoning

6. Historical Context and Concerns • Heavy Industry • Health & Safety Concerns • Crude Transportation Technology • Diversity

8. First Zoning Regulations • 1867 NYC Tenement Housing Law • Protect Health and Safety

9. Early Zoning Ordinances • City of Los Angeles – 1909 • Berkley (exclusive single-family zones) • NYC Comprehensive Zoning Code – 1916 • Model State Zoning Enabling Legislation - 1928

10. Standard Acts • Response to post WW I & II growth • Protection of value of land • Concerns about congestion and nuisance

11. Conventional Zoning Hierarchy Density Use Management Form

12. Results of Conventional Zoning and Subdivision • Single use pods of development • Buffers instead of transitions • Lack of a transportation network • Not pedestrian-friendly, not transit-friendly • Narrowly stratified market • Planned obsolescence, so constructed accordingly • Scrape, rezone and sometimes re-subdivide to redevelop • Value drops when the intended use is no longer viable

13. Definition “Form-based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. These codes are adopted into city or county law as regulations, not mere guidelines.” - Form-Based Codes Institute

14. Form Based Zoning Hierarchy Management Form Use

15. Results of Form-Based Zoning • Codes encourage mixed use • Transitions instead of buffers • A network of transportation, encouraging choice • Easy to walk • Broad market (age, socio-economic, lifestyle) • Planned and constructed to endure • Change of use within buildings instead of redeveloping • Value holds when the current use is no longer viable

16. Economic Foundation for Sustained Value

17. Becoming More Common • Leander, TX • Farmers Branch, TX • Mesquite, TX • North Richland Hills, TX • Duncanville, TX • Roanoke, TX • Benicia, CA • Ventura, CA • Peoria, IL • Owensboro, KY • Auburn, CA • Sarasota County, FL

18. Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas - Before

19. Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas - After

20. Existing Development Pattern McKinney’s Town Center is “traditional”--was developed prior to conventional zoning and subdivision Designed with pedestrians and walking in mind Vibrant mix of uses and compact urban form (grid street network) Small blocks/small lots/narrow streets Buildings closer to the street

21. Existing Zoning Framework

22. Issues with current standards Existing zoning districts do not relate directly to the Town Center Vision/Master Plan Zoning is fractured and does not coalesce into a clear center, edge, and transitions as identified in the Master Plan Lack of adjacency predictability = more risk for developers/investors

23. Issues with current zoning standards Existing standards do not result in a predictable built environment. For example, non-residential buildings in General Business (BG) may be built to the street (0’ minimum setback) but are not required to be built to the street.

24. Issues with current standards • Micro-manage and segregate land uses • Attempt to control development “intensity” through abstract/arbitrary/uncoordinated parameters (floor-area-ratio, setbacks, parking ratios, dwelling units per acre) • Only prohibit undesirable outcomes—don’t include measures to produce desirable outcomes • Suburban development standards (setbacks, heights, landscaping, screening, etc) in many of the zoning districts (BN, BG) emphasize land use over form • Parking standards ignore the existing built context within the Town Center

25. Issues with current standards Mixing residential uses with commercial uses is not permitted by right. This is critical for the long-term success of McKinney’s Town Center. Current zoning does not adequately address transitions (size, scale, massing, building form) to adjoining neighborhoods.

26. Issues with current standards Lack of functional urban design standards to ensure that new development is pedestrian-oriented and is consistent with the community’s vision.

27. Issues with current standards • Street design requirements ignore existing development pattern • Standards for the provision of public improvements are geared toward addressing infrastructure needs for new “greenfield” development and inhibit incremental infill/redevelopment • Design standards (block, lot, street, sidewalk, etc.) are minimum regulations that produce identical public spaces with no regard to the local context/character/vision of the Town Center

28. McKinney’s Town Center generally consists of a traditional, urban, pedestrian-oriented development pattern that existed and evolved for almost 100 years before the advent of contemporary zoning and subdivision regulations.For the last 50+ years: conventional, suburban, auto-oriented zoning and subdivision development regulations have been unsuccessfully applied to the Town Center.The Phase 1 process and community vision call for sustained long-term revitalization of the Town Center through a renewed emphasis on authentic traditional, urban, pedestrian-oriented built environment.Form-based coding is the only regulatory tool available to successfully achieve the community vision for the Town Center. And, TIRZ projections assume implementation of a form-based code. Bottom Line

29. Historic Downtown Future Transit Village Corridors (SH 5, Kentucky/ Tennessee, & US 380) Residential Neighborhoods Phase 1 Focus Areas

30. FBC Considerations • Areas to be coded • Degrees of change • Method of implementation and integration with existing code

31. Illustrative Plan—Adopted 2008

32. Proposed Regulating Plan

33. FBC Components For each character zone: • Building form standards • Open space standards • Street standards • Block standards • Frontage type standards • Building type standards • Signage, lighting, landscape standards + Administration

34. Building Form Standards • Primary role in defining physical form • Simple diagrams, easy-to-read tables • 2 pages per character district • building placement • building form • parking/service access • frontage

35. Public Space (Street) Standards • traffic, parking lanes • landscape, lighting, sidewalk • movement type • design speed • curb radius • pedestrian crossing time • width (ROW, curb face to curb face)

36. Non-Conformities • Town Center FBC shall distinguish between Non-Conforming Uses, Non-Conforming Buildings, and Non-Conforming Signs • Non-Conforming Uses will be “grandfathered” based on Section 146-40 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance • Can spend money on maintaining existing buildings so long as the non-conforming use is not expanded (less than 50% of the assessed value of the building or $50,000, whichever is greater over a rolling 3-year period) • Can change to another “higher or more restrictive” non-conforming use • Non-conforming use status is lost if the use is abandoned continuously for 6 months or more • Appeals heard by the Board of Adjustment

37. Non-Conformities • Non-Conforming Buildings • May continue to be used until any modifications or reconstructions are made that are valued at more than 50% of the assessed value of the building or $50,000, whichever is greater, over a rolling 3-year period • Any changes made only to a Pedestrian Priority “A” Street façade of a building shall be in conformance with the new code regardless of value of the proposed change.

38. Non-Conformities • Non-Conforming Signs • May continue to be used until the sign is reconstructed or substantially modified such that the modifications are valued at 50% or greater than the replacement value of the sign • Non-Conforming Lots of Record • New FBC will eliminate minimum lot size requirements for lots within the Town Center FBC District • Will establish minimum and maximum block dimensions to ensure a walkable environment

39. Administration • A Town Center Development Coordinator (TCDC) shall be appointed who is the single point of contact to facilitate development in the Town Center • All development projects that meet the FBC Code are reviewed and approved by staff (administrative approval) • Any changes to the boundaries of the TC FBC Zone will be reviewed and processed as a zoning change • Any development that does not meet the FBC Code may apply for a “Design Exception” from the HPAB (review criteria based on the Town Center Master Plan)

40. Public Improvements • Public Improvements may include the reconstruction or new construction of streets, sidewalks, streetscape improvements, other utility infrastructure (water, sewer, drainage) • Current standards are based on “greenfield” subdivisions where developer pays for most infrastructure costs • Existing context and ownership in the Town Center needs to be considered to encourage redevelopment • Standards for public improvements should be based on the existing Town Center context (streets, sidewalks, etc.) • Phasing and timing of public improvements should be considered to tie public investment (CIP) with private development

41. Next Steps/Timeline • Complete draft of freestanding FBC—3 months • Complete draft of overlay FBC—6 months • Ongoing refinement/testing/internal coordination with Engineering, Fire, and Building Departments • Ongoing stakeholder outreach (including public workshop and 30-day public review/comment period prior to formal approval process)