Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rio 29 Code Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission reviews Rio 29 form‑based code updates, supports street‑centric and core‑area changes
Summary
Staff presented ZTA 2024‑1 proposing six core changes to the Rio 29 form‑based code including shifting core areas to existing shopping centers, introducing a street hierarchy and destination streets, adjusting civic/recreation space rules, and granting limited administrative modifications. Commissioners generally supported the direction but asked for stronger incentives and clearer green‑infrastructure standards.
Senior planner Mariah Gleason presented the work session on ZTA 2024‑1, a county-proposed update to the Rio 29 form‑based code intended to address implementation challenges identified since its 2021 adoption. Staff framed the revisions as six fundamental changes to make the code more administrable and to better achieve the small‑area plan’s pedestrian and place‑making goals.
Two of the central proposed changes: relocate the code’s "core" areas to be centered on existing shopping centers (Royal Hill Shopping Center, Albemarle Square and Fashion Square) rather than a high‑speed intersection, and adopt a street‑centric regulatory framework that prioritizes destination streets, avenues and boulevards while allowing more flexibility on local streets. Staff argued these moves separate pedestrian‑focused areas from high‑speed corridors and concentrate commercial activity where ownership and existing activity already favor it.
Commissioners broadly supported the approach but raised multiple implementation questions: how to tie street type standards to building form and density, how the county will encourage developers to build intended urban forms without extensive public infrastructure investments, and how to pair incentives for sustainability (for example, green streets, bioswales, or green roofs) with attainable developer economics. Several commissioners urged staff to bring more concrete incentives tied to green infrastructure and stormwater management and to clarify how recreation spaces will be managed long term.
On civic space, staff proposed that required recreation spaces of 1 acre or more be dedicated to the county for maintenance while smaller required spaces remain privately owned and maintained (with a cash‑in‑lieu option). Commissioners suggested middle‑ground mechanisms such as county easements on privately maintained open space and a stronger district‑level approach to concentrate county maintenance on high‑impact public parks.
Staff also proposed administrative tools to improve predictability — roughly two dozen agent‑approved waivers/modifications plus an expanded set of board‑approved special exceptions — but intentionally excluded key elements tied to policy goals (recreation provision, affordable housing mix thresholds) from routine administrative flexibility.
Next steps: staff will return with the second work session focused on regulatory and technical edits, including street cross‑sections, green infrastructure standards, and potential incentives to help the code attract private development that meets the county’s vision.
What to watch: whether the county pairs regulatory changes with fiscal or design incentives (e.g., density bonuses tied to green practices, public investments in street networks) and how staff defines the technical standards for green streets, tree canopy, and recreation contributions.
