Sign In

 

Glitch Ordinance

glitch - noun \ 'glich \ a minor malfunction


The City's Growth Management Department is working on an ordinance meant to finetune our existing Zoning Code. We've been referring to it as the Glitch Ordinance. This page will be where we post documents and resources related to the Glitch Ordinance.

The Glitch Ordinance has 3 goals:

  • First, we want to identify parts of the Code that aren’t working as intended and propose how to fix it. Zoning Codes are living documents that are meant to evolve over time to reflect the community's priorities. It's also important to recognize that time has taught us what parts of the Code are and aren't working as planned. That's what we're doing with the Glitch Ordinance. It's an effort to fine-tune the Code to make it work better.
  • Second, we also kept a laser focus on what the Code is trying to achieve. Ensuring that the desired outcome is achieved is an absolute, but there is typically more than one way of achieving an outcome. Where that made sense, we worked to build multiple paths to achieving the same outcome. The outcome is an absolute, but there are often multiple paths to get to that outcome.
  • Third, fixing the Code and adding common sense flexibility should also serve to reduce the number of future variance requests. However, the first goal was always to fix the Code where we identified a need. If that reduces future variances, that’s a good secondary benefit, but it wasn't what guided our decisions.

Public Hearing Dates

  • November 2 - Planning Commission initiation
  • December 8 - City Commission introduction
  • January 4 - Planning Commission consistency hearing
  • January 26 - City Commission adoption hearing

Videos of Past Meetings

August 16, 2021
September 13, 2021
September 20, 2021
October 4, 2021
October 18, 2021

Future Meetings

These meetings are held via WebEx on the dates listed below, from 6:00pm to 7:30pm. Click on the meeting to see the WebEx information:

  1. September 13 - Compensating Enhancements
  2. September 20 - Modified Standards
  3. October 4 - Multi-Modal Transportation District
  4. October 18 - Discussion of Updated Draft

Drafts of Glitch Ordinance

August 9, 2021
September 30, 2021
October 10, 2021
October 21, 2021
  • Updated Draft Glitch Ordinance
    This is the version submitted to the Planning Commission for initiation on November 2, 2021. Please note that changes between the October 10 and October 21 drafts are highlighted yellow.
November 16, 2021
  • Updated Draft Glitch Ordinance
    This is the version submitted to the City Commission for introduction on December 8, 2021. Please note that changes between the October 21 and November 16 drafts are highlighted yellow.
January 4, 2022
  • Draft Glitch Ordinance
    This is the staff report and ordinance submitted to the Planning Commission for its consistency hearing on January 4, 2022. The Planning Commission concluded that the Glitch Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The adoption hearing is scheduled on the City Commission's agenda for January 26, 2022.
January 26, 2022
  • Draft Glitch Ordinance
    This is the staff report and ordinance submitted to the City Commission for its adoption hearing on January 26, 2022.

Other Resources

August 16, 2021 Community Meeting Answers

  1. Questions Related to the Multi-Building Development Option
    Sec. 10-284.9 of the draft Glitch Ordinance proposes an option for multi-building developments. It reads in part as follows: "A multi-building development totaling at least 90,000 square feet and at least six buildings located in the Multi-Modal Transportation District outside of the Downtown Overlay may develop utilizing a pedestrian corridor instead of a public right-of-way as the principle frontage."
    1. What was staff trying to achieve with this option?
      The Multi-Modal Transportation District calls for buildings to be sited close to the street in order to foster a more walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. In corridors like Gaines Street, this approach has been extremely successful. Walkability begins with roadway design and is completed with a diverse mix of land uses. In the case of Gaines Street, it was redesigned and traffic calming measures were introduced to reduce speeds. The result is a successful, pedestrian environment.

      However, this development pattern is more challenging on wider roadways with higher traffic volumes and faster speeds. The number of lanes, the volume of cars, and the speed limit on a typical arterial is an entirely different set of conditions. If a large project sites all of its buildings on such a road, it is doubtful that the pedestrian environment will work successfully. An option used in other cities is to allow such larger projects to focus inward with more narrow internal drives that support the type of walkable environment that has been created on Gaines Street.

      As discussed at the August 16 community meeting, this option is an effort to move away from a "one size fits all" approach to development standards and to be more context sensitive along each corridor. We want to remain absolutely focused on the Code's intended standard but provide multiple paths for achieving those standards. What works for Gaines Street won't necessarily work for North Monroe Street or West Tennessee Street.

    2. Where has the multi-building option worked in other cities?
      The table below provides a sample list of commercial projects across the country that allow buildings to front on an internal road instead of an adjacent public right-of-way. Please note that each project name is a hyperlink. Clicking on the project name takes you to a map on the project's website. If you would like an aerial and a street level view of each development, please go to Google Earth and search for the project name and city. As you consider the projects in this list, please keep in mind that they are provided as varying examples of the multi-building development pattern. The examples range from about 77,000 to 575,000 square feet. Note that many of the larger projects include big box retail on their periphery. If the big box retail is removed, the overall size is reduced substantially.

      Project Name Square Feet City
      The Pavilions 76,719 Sacramento, CA
      Palisades Village 124,965 Pacific Palisades, CA
      Redstone 190,000 Park City, UT
      One Colorado 243,508 Pasadena, CA
      MarketStreet 300,000 Lynnfield, MA
      Market Common Clarendon 300,000 Arlington, VA
      The Market Common 350,000 Myrtle Beach, SC
      The Shops at Dos Lagos 350,000 Corona, CA
      The Streets of Tanasbourne 368,000 Hillsboro, OR
      The Promenade Shops at Evergreen Walk 374,000 South Windsor, CT
      Kierland Commons 383,810 Scottsdale, AZ
      The District at Green Valley Ranch 385,000 Henderson, NV
      The Americana at Brand 492,802 Glendale, CA
      Winter Park Village 525,000 Winter Park, FL
      The Grove 575,000 Los Angeles, CA


    3. What examples of this multi-building development pattern are in Florida?
      As noted in the table above, Winter Park Village is located just to the north of Orlando. Please see a report from the Urban Land Institute that profiles Winter Park Village here. Additional site photographs from the project will also be posted here in the near future.

    4. What development standards should accompany the multi-building development pattern?
      Staff agrees that this option should logically be accompanied by minimum development standards to ensure the desired outcome is achieved. Such development standards are being prepared and will be posted here in the near future.

    5. Can you provide a map that depicts sites in Tallahassee that would be able to potentially use this option?
      Yes. Staff has prepared a map that depicts those sites.

  1. How does the proposed ordinance implement principles of social equity?
    The American Planning Association (APA) has a discussion of social equity in city planning at its website. As noted by APA, "Planning for social equity means recognizing planning practices that have had a disparate impact on certain communities and actively working with affected residents to create better communities for all."

    At its core, the proposed Glitch Ordinance is working to recognize that each corridor is unique and that a "one size fits all" approach to development standards can be detrimental. The proposed ordinance maintains the Zoning Code's standards. For example, all neighborhoods deserve a good pedestrian environment. However, where it makes common sense to do so, the proposed ordinance introduces multiple paths to achieve the same outcome. In that sense, we believe the proposed Glitch Ordinance advances the cause of social equity. It will make it easier, not more challenging, to attract new development because it better recognizes the unique context of each area. Staff developed case studies for sites along South Monroe, South Adams, and Brevard Streets to further illustrate how the proposed Glitch Ordinance will address social equity.

  2. Can staff develop additional tree protection initiatives to incentivize developers to keep trees?
    Yes. Staff is evaluating options for additional tree protection incentives and will post them here when completed.

October 4, 2021 Community Meeting Answers

  1. Please clarify the difference between grade and finished floor with respect to transparency, and how it was applied to Magnolia Grove
    As discussed at the October 4 meeting, transparency is a function of pedestrian eye level, which the MMTD defines as 3 to 8 feet above grade. The draft Glitch Ordinance proposes to change "grade" to "finished floor elevation". On a flat site, grade and finished floor are typically the same thing. However, on a site with topography, measuring pedestrian eye level from grade doesn't work because the building floors don't run parallel to the natural grade. The image below illustrates this point. The building moves up the hill from left to right. Floors are not parallel to the natural grade because they must remain level. Therefore, pedestrian eye level must be measured from the finished floor elevation, not the grade. It is not possible to do otherwise. This fixes an oversight that has been in the MMTD since the beginning and has led to many unnecessary variances. As written, the existing code is literally unattainable. During the October 4 community meeting, staff was asked how this change would apply to Magnolia Grove. We would like to expand further on our answer.
    Chart showing floor levels of a building that do not follow the grade of the land
    The issue of natural grade versus finished floor comes into play when topography moves across the face of the building so that one side is at a lower elevation and the other side is at a higher elevation. In the case of Magnolia Grove, the entire site was graded up, with the result that all structures were built on an elevated, but flat site. At Magnolia Grove, the topography moves perpendicular to the face of the buildings, not across it from left to right. With Magnolia Grove, the site is flat, so the grade and the finished floor are the same. The sidewalk requirement was met by building 2 parallel sidewalks, with 1 along Magnolia and 1 along the face of the building. See the image below. Magnolia Grove is not a relevant example for this particular code provision. It is an entirely different set of conditions.
    A comparison of sidewalk options along a grade
  2. Please provide examples of murals on parking garages
    Instead of staff sending what we like, may we suggest that you Google the words "parking garage murals", and then click on "Images" at the top. The image below shows what you'll find. The web has dozens and dozens of examples. This is an extremely common tool used to activate the pedestrian environment in cities across the country.
    A series of Google images that shows you can find anything on Google if you just, you know, try?
  3. Please provide examples of the development standards found in other cities for the multi-building option
    Participants asked for the development standards that staff found in other cities to show how they approached the multi-building development option. They are below. Staff called everyone and received four responses. Please note that this was just the place that we started from. There were several subsequent meetings with the City's architect from our DesignWorks staff that resulted in the proposal as it exists today.

Photographs of Winter Park Village Project

Winter Park Village is a commercial project in Winter Park, Florida. It was highlighted in the August 16, 2021 community meeting as an example of a development that allows buildings to front on an internal road instead of an adjacent public right-of-way. The photos shown below were taken at a variety of project locations, including the internal pedestrian streets, the parking along the project's edge, and the adjacent roads. View the site plan for this project for more information.