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

Town Center Initiative 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)

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 5 Today’s Typical Approach to Development Regulation: Conventional Zoning

Town Center Initiative 6 Heavy Industry Health & Safety Concerns Crude Transportation Technology Diversity Historical Context and Concerns

Town Center Initiative 7

NYC Tenement Housing Law Protect Health and Safety First Zoning Regulations

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

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

Town Center Initiative 11 Conventional Zoning Hierarchy

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 13 “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 Definition

Town Center Initiative 14 Form Based Zoning Hierarchy

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 16 Economic Foundation for Sustained Value

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 18 Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas - Before

Town Center Initiative 19 Oak Street, Roanoke, Texas - After

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 21 Existing Zoning Framework

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 23 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. Issues with current standards

Town Center Initiative 24 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 Issues with current standards

Town Center Initiative 25 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. Issues with current standards

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

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 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

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

Town Center Initiative 30 Areas to be coded Degrees of change Method of implementation and integration with existing code Calibration and customization FBC Considerations Preservation Targeted enhancement Evolution Transformation Freestanding Overlay

Town Center Initiative Illustrative Plan—Adopted 2008

Town Center Initiative 32 Proposed Regulating Plan

Town Center Initiative 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

Town Center Initiative 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

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

Town Center Initiative 36 FBC shall distinguish between Non-Conforming Uses, Non- Conforming Buildings, and Non-Conforming Signs Non-Conforming Uses to be “grandfathered” based on Section 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 Non-Conformities

Town Center Initiative 37 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 to be in conformance with the new code regardless of value of the proposed change. Non-Conformities

Town Center Initiative 38 The Planning Director (or designee) to be the Town Center Development Coordinator (TCDC)--the single point of contact to facilitate development in the Town Center All development projects that comply with FBC to be reviewed and approved by Staff (administrative approval is faster and more predictable for developers) Any changes to the boundaries of the FBC Zone to be reviewed and processed as a zoning change Any development that does not comply with FBC may apply for a “Design Exception” from the Planning and Zoning Commission (review criteria based on the Town Center Master Plan) Administration

Town Center Initiative 39 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 Public Improvements

Town Center Initiative 40 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)