Negative Feedback

Posted by kevin.mclaughlin70 Oct 14th 10:11 PM

Page 47 - 1

Just a note that we could do a better job as a city on this

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:22 PM

This section applies to the construction or expansion of three to eight residential units that are located on a platted residential lot

On site plan for 3-8 lots it requires a platted residential lot. In 1-2 it simply requires a legal lot. Both should require just a legal lot. Limiting to platted lots will reduce the usefulness of transition zones. Also lots without deed restrictions are frequently not platted.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:19 PM

(2) This section does not apply to development that: (a) Includes a boat dock, bulkhead, or shoreline access; (b) Exceeds 50 percent impervious cover; (c) Is on a lot that was not originally part of a residential subdivision; or (d) Requires a variance from the Land Use Commission.

I believe 2b should be removed. Impervious cover limits in all zones should be in line with allowing for a limited site plan review, particularly in allowing for more missing middle housing. 2c is also unclear without a map as to what was originally platted as residential and when.

Posted by pete.gilcrease Oct 05th 10:56 PM

The neighborhood plan contact team for the planning area in which the property is located.

To be more inclusive, if a neighborhood plan contact team can initiate a change, then other groups should be allowed to initiate a change as well, since often people are excluded from being members of a contact team. Neighborhood associations, non-profits, and all forms of other groups that are stakeholders in the planning area should be able to initiate changes.

Posted by pete.gilcrease Oct 05th 10:01 PM

If the applicant is a neighborhood plan contact team, the City is responsible for the cost of notice.

This seems unfair to allow contact teams make changes for free, but other groups are responsible for the cost. Other stakeholders in the neighborhood or planning area should also be able to initiate changes without the barriers that are currently placed on them, which makes changes and improvements less likely if they can only come from exclusionary groups.

Posted by pete.gilcrease Oct 05th 10:11 PM

(c) An application may be filed only during the month established by the responsible director under Subsection (K) unless: (i) The application is submitted by a neighborhood plan contact team for the planning area in which the property is located; or (ii) A neighborhood plan contact team for the planning area in which the property is located has given written approval of the application.

This is very limiting. If a contact team can amend at any time during the year, then it should allow other groups and individuals the same ability. There’s no reason to limit the time period for some and not others.

Posted by pete.gilcrease Oct 05th 10:17 PM

(K) Map and Filing Date. The responsible director shall establish a map designating the area of the City for which a neighborhood plan amendment must be submitted in February and the area for which an application must be submitted in July.

Amendments should not be so limited to specific times of the year.

Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:00 PM

(3) Written comments provided under this subsection are considered to be delivered to the director on the date that the comments are: (a) Received by the body conducting a public hearing or, for an administrative decision, director or designated case manager; or (b) Submitted by email, if authorized by the director.

If (a) gets lost in the mail, one could insure against that by sending an email in (b), but that is subject to director authorization. Director authorization for an email sounds like a good way to ignore comments in the administrative process.

Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:16 PM

(E) If an appeal challenges the director’s interpretation or application of multiple codes falling within the jurisdiction of more than one body, the director may divide the appeal into separate cases and assign each case to the appropriate board.

Breaking this into multiple cases is going to tie things up even longer. A joint committee could be formed with members of the interested boards that would allow for things to be sped along a little bit more, rather than waiting on committee meetings for god-knows-how-many boards to meet.

Posted by elliottbucknall Oct 05th 10:27 PM

(C) Contents of Determination. The director shall provide a written determination to the applicant, which must state: (1) Whether the petition is approved or denied, wholly or partly, and the basis for the decision; (2) Findings of fact in support of the determination and information sufficient to identify the permit or fair notice application on which the petition is based; and (3) If the petition is approved: (a) A description of the project for which vested rights are recognized; and (b) A vesting date.

If the determination is partially or fully approved, there should be listed descriptions of the significant changes in the land use regulations due to the vesting. Ex. “The property is exempt from the exterior route visitability”. This may or may not be doable to other rules such as chapter 245 which is a state provision, ect.

Posted by josiahstevenson Oct 05th 10:46 PM

Limitations on building size, including floor area ratio (FAR), height, or gross floor area

Does it make sense to suggest that Land Use Commission should impose conditions on FAR and Height for a CUP? A CUP is for potential variation on uses – if you want to regulate height and massing, would seem like it makes more sense to just do that in the zoning?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:17 PM

Development in compliance with the variance does not result in parking or loading on public thoroughfares that interferes with the free flow of traffic on thoroughfares; and (3) Development in compliance with the variance does not create a safety hazard or any other condition that is inconsistent with the objectives of the Code.

Free flow of traffic encourages, exacerbates safety hazards to cars, pedestrians and cyclists

Posted by ki Oct 06th 10:56 PM

MULTI-FAMILY. A residential building containing three or more dwelling units within a single building, with one or more multi-unit buildings per site, and includes, but is not limited to, triplex, quadplex, bungalow court apartments, and multi-unit apartment complexes.

If you are R4 and above you cannot do detached structures (3-4 separate adu type units).

In r4 you can only do duplex and multi-family. Multifamily is defined on page 278 as a building with 3 units or more.

So if your deed restrictions say you can only do single family structures you can do effectively nothing on these lots (with the exception of rebuilding a house). Unless you want to get sued and not get clear title.

Once you get to anything above rm1 (rm2, rm3 etc) you can’t do anything but triplexes.

The number of lots with deed restrictions that allow triplexes is effectively zero.

This restriction will greatly greatly decrease the unit yield from this code rewrite.

Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:08 PM

Group Residential

As near as I can tell, this term seems to refer to roommates. Are you saying that in R1 - R2C, roommates wouldn’t be allowed? If so, I have a big problem with that.

Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:04 PM


It seems counter-intuitive that R3 would allow for a new single family home.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:03 PM

Page 289 - 2

Group residential should be allowed in all residential house-scale. This can be managed by constraints on number of occupants rather than a wholesale ban.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:02 PM

Page 289 - 1

Large child care, large adult care should be allowed in all residential house-scale zones.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:42 AM

Page 290 - 1

Not allowing uses such as small office, neighborhood retail, neighborhood, bakery, cafe, etc. in Residential House-Scale zones is a huge missed opportunity to make neighborhoods more walkable, more environmentally sustainable.

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:44 PM

If the parking structure is less than 20 feet behind the building facade, the width of the parking structure may not exceed 50 percent of the width of the building facade, measured parallel to the front lot line

Allow one garage space in all cases. So the code would be “the greater of the width of 50 of the building facade or 12 feet”. This encourages small narrow houses. Also takes into account possibility of a tree limiting the width of the primary dwelling.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:15 PM

(3) Parking Structure. A parking structure with an entrance that faces the front yard abutting right-of-way: (a) May not be closer to the front lot line than the front-most exterior wall of the first floor of the building facade; and (b) May not be closer to the front lot line than 18 feet

The intention here is good - making garages less prominent - but this is overly prescriptive, especially since there are other constraints often in play in Urban invfil, such as heritage trees.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:32 PM

(4) Parking Space. A motor vehicle may only be parked or stored on a driveway or paved parking space. A parking space may not be located in a front yard, except for a parking space in a driveway when: (a) The driveway is approximately 90 degrees to the street right-of-way; or (b) The driveway is 45 to 90 degrees to the street right-of-way for circular driveways. A circular driveway is only permitted when the primary street is a Corridor, or the director determines that backing a motor vehicle onto the adjacent roadway is unsafe.

While reducing parking minimums is great, prescribing how a driveway should be configured (within impervious cover limits, of course) seems overly burdensome.

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:09 PM

(2) Accessory Dwelling Unit. (a) The floor area of an accessory dwelling unit counts against the FAR limit for the principal use on the lot.

Not sure of the logistics of this, but would it be possible to encourage missing middle housing by not having Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) count against a lots Floor Area Ration (FAR), at least in certain circumstances that create negative effects for safety or environmental impacts?

Posted by ki Oct 06th 10:29 PM

The total number of dwelling units otherwise allowed in the zone may be exceeded by one.

Unless you can build 2 adu’s you can run into a problem. If there are two separate structures (house and adu) currently on the lot how would you add a third. Tear one down and build a duplex. It would be better to simply allow a third adu. Forcing one to tear down a structure to take advantage of the preservation incentive is strange.

Posted by ki Oct 06th 10:17 PM

The total number of dwelling units otherwise allowed in the zone may be exceeded by one.

Can we state explicitly that if we keep the existing unit 2 adu’s can be built. Currently its confusing if a only a duplex can be built. If that is true this would not be possible on a large number of lots due to deed restrictions that do not allow duplexes.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:39 PM

Impervious Cover 25%

Given the minimum lot size, this still means someone can cover over 10,000 square feet in impervious cover. RR should be the lowest development possible, and as such the impervious cover should be reduced to no higher than 20%, if not 15%

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:22 PM

Residential 1 (R1) Zone (A) Purpose. Residential 1 (R1) zone is intended to allow detached housing on small lots throughout the city.

This seems to be the last bastion of strictly single-family zoning in the code. Is there room to advocate for doing away with this zoning category and merging it into the proposed “Residential 2C” (R2C) Zone (see page 311) so that, by default, people can at least build single-family attached and duplex structures anywhere in Austin that is zoned residential (except Rural Residential and Lake Austin, I guess) ? They may choose to build single-family structures, but at least there’s the option for more density.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:51 PM

Page 306 - 1

If this zone is geared towards small lots, then ideally the zone would reduce the minimum size lot to a 25’ x 50’ lot, or 1500SF. At that point the FAR should then be 1.0.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:16 PM

Purpose. Residential 2A (R2A) zone is intended to allow detached housing with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or duplexes in a more suburban setting.

A large percentage of Austin’s Urban Core is zone R2A. Given the staff’s definition of this zone we have to wonder - why are we encouraging suburban setting in the Urban Core? How does this square with Imagine Austin’s of building a compact and connected city?

Posted by jensen.cochran Oct 06th 10:43 PM

Page 308 - 3

(this relates to R2A and R2B, which are both very common zones and deserve extra attention) The zones do not seem to allow for 2 detached units, except in the case of home+ADU, where the ADU must be less than or equal to 1100 sq ft (see 23-3D-1030). Seems arbitrary to allow, for example, a 1300 sq ft house and detached 1100 sq ft ADU, but not two 1200 sq ft detached houses.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:56 PM

Page 308 - 2

Lot widths should be reduced to 25’, minimum lot size reduced to 2,500 for all uses, and FAR balanced to 0.5 for all.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:54 PM

Page 308 - 1

Ideally, minimum lot width would be reduced to 25’ and minimum areas would be cut in half. The minimum FAR in these areas should be 0.5.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:19 PM

Table 23-3C-3090(B) Building Placement (1) Setback (Distance from ROW / Lot Line) Front Side St. Side Rear Minimum 25' 15' 5' 10'

Set back requirement of 25’ in the front is too large. Homes set closer to the street make for a better pedestrian experience.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:04 PM

Page 312 - 2

All minimum areas except for townhomes should be halved and all FAR should be increased to at least 0.5.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:01 PM

Page 312 - 1

Lot minimum width should be reduced to 25’ and I believe the three R2 zones should be combined for clarity and conciseness.

Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:36 PM

To maintain a house-scale aesthetic, private frontages are required.

Same as with R3. A shared entry doesn’t necessarily preclude a house-scale aesthetic.

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:20 PM

Cottage Court

Why are cottage courts not allowed in all rm zones? They are currently only allowed in rm1.

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:32 PM

Cottage Court

Why are cottage courts not allowed in all rm zones? They are currently only allowed in rm1.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:21 PM

Table 23-3C-4040(A) Parking Requirements for Residential Multi-Unit Zones

There should be no minimum parking requirements for residential uses. Parking spaces can cost between 20,000 and 50,000 each to build and not only does that drive up the cost of housing, but it eats into impervious cover. If a builder wants to provide them then that is fine, but they should not be required.

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:14 PM

landscape with at least one water feature;

We often have droughts in this area - if this “water feature” language is included just for aesthetic purposes, can we leave out this potential source of waste?

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:20 PM

Page 335 - 3

Minimum area in all zones for multifamily should be reduced to 2500SF and minimum width should be reduced to 25’. With the number set higher you are encouraging less missing middle housing and promoting more large-scale apartments to be built.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:18 PM

Page 335 - 2

The base FAR for all multi-unit zones should be 1.0, if not closer to 1.5. This will encourage family-size units to be built (2 to 3 bedrooms).

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Table 23-3C-4070(A) Lot Size and Intensity

The minimum lot size is too high to be able to build missing middle housing. Coupled with the low max intensity, the only thing that can be built on 5,000SF lots appears to be duplexes.

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:26 PM

(2) Compatibility Setbacks

For lots over 75 feet wide there is compatibility of 20 feet on the side and 30 feet at the rear. Compatibility does not allow anything in this area. Driveways and 1 story buildings should be allowed in this compatibility area. Not allowing in this area seems excessive.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:28 PM

Page 340 - 1

Maximum density is too low, minimum lot size is too high, FAR is too low, combine all those and all you will get are townhomes at most.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:38 PM

Compatibility Height Stepback Distance from the lot line of the triggering property

Compatibility impact should be limited to only within 25’ of a lot line and only to 45’. The current writing of this will limit height and create ziggurat buildings across the city.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:40 PM

Table 23-3C-5040(A) Parking Requirements for Mixed-Use Zones

There should be no parking required for any residential. The cost and impact to impervious cover is too high.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:44 PM

(7) Restaurant and Bars

It seems dangerous to require parking for bars.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:49 PM

Page 376 - 1

Minimum area for development is too high and maximum FAR is too low.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:50 PM

Page 379 - 1

There doesn’t seem to be enough differentiation between MU1 and MU2 to warrant to different zones.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:54 PM

(2) Compatibility Setback

Compatibility Setbacks should be removed

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:58 PM

Page 396 - 1

Minimum areas for lots should be reduced and compatibility setbacks should be removed.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:01 PM

(2) Compatibility Height Stepback Distance from the lot line of the triggering property:

It seems a bit silly that a zone could be potential lower than what is allowed next to it, i.e. a single-family home could be taller than a main-street building. The reduction should only be to 35’ if there is any reduction at all.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:04 PM

Page 416 - 1

There isn’t enough clarity as to why MS2A and MS2B are not combined into one zone.

Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:25 PM

Page 424 - 1

Townhouse not a permitted use in DC - This is probably not worth pursuing but it’s unclear why townhouse would not be a permitted use in DC. It’s unlikely somebody would want to pursue one, but downtown has some narrow parcels that could fit townhouses but no other housing type.

Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:34 PM

Table 23-3C-7070(A) Lot Size and Intensity

These FARs are way too low to achieve the desired height without a lot of above-grade parking. The height acts as a reasonable density control here and therefore FAR controls should be removed in all height-limited CC zones.

Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:20 PM

Manufactured Home

Manufactured Homes are not allowed in residential zones. This a huge limitation on inexpensive housing.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:05 PM

Page 520 - 1

Judge’s Hill should be zoned similarly to how Rainey Street was zoned. There is no reason why it should be so close to downtown and have such restrictions between two of the densest neighborhoods in the city.

Posted by info Oct 05th 10:08 PM

Page 522 - 1

I understand that these compatibility zones have been taken from the Downtown Austin Plan (adopted nearly a decade ago), but they should be reviewed to see if they are appropriate for downtown properties and if they are consistent with the direction the city is taking with current city policies and the overall LDC revision.

Some of these compatibility areas, for instance, appear to be even more restrictive than the compatibility standards used elsewhere in town, which raises questions about equity as well as about how these special compatibility standards affect dense development within downtown (itself an Imagine Austin Center). For reference, Council adopted direction to “reduce the impact of compatibility standards on development within activity centers and activity corridors to a greater extent than Draft 3.”

North Lamar between Old 7th and the half-block north of 10th especially should be reviewed. This area caps height on the corridor itself, which would appear to provide the opposite policy direction to what the city is doing elsewhere.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:07 PM

Page 542 - 1

Given the need for more housing and higher development through UNO, the lowest height maximum should allow for 5-over-1 apartments, so 65’.

Posted by ki Oct 06th 10:26 PM

(b) Parking must be clustered and may not be provided adjacent to or attached to an individual unit .

The group parking is not ideal for people with health issues (for instance lowered immune systems that want to stay out of freezing rain in the winter). Or people that can’t carry heavy objects father distances. I think the cottage court could be ideal for elderly residents. But not with these restrictions. Allowing two areas of clustered parking (one on left, one on right) would be better.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:09 PM

Page 625 - 1

Time should be changed to between 9pm and 8am

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:37 PM

Square Feet. When the number of required parking spaces is based on floor area, the measurement of the floor area shall be in square feet and include the gross floor area except for enclosed or covered areas that are used for off-street parking or loading, or bicycle storage rooms.

This is just a bad calculation, I know nothing will change, but the city needs to know that this is dumb.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Located within 1/4 mile of a transit corridor or center and meet standards of 23-3D-2050 (B)(1)(b)

Where 23-3D-2050 (B)(1)(b)(ii) “the proposed development is connected to a corridor by an accessible sidewalk system; or” applies, parking will not be able to be reduced, which will make constructing new residential units more expensive. Since the sidewalk network is horribly incomplete this is a highly prohibitive stipulation.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:17 PM

3 to 11 units None required

If car parking is required as a baseline, then bicycle parking should also be required as a baseline. It’s only fair and fits the ASMP.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:39 PM

Page 633 - 3

Within commercial need to separate retail/restaurant and office bike requirements. Retail/restaurant should have significantly more bike parking to accommodate those who work at the establishment and the patrons (Boulder requires 1 space per 750 sq.ft)

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:33 PM

Page 633 - 2

Bike parking requirements for multi-unit developments are WAY TOO LOW!!! We can do much better: Portland, Seattle, Boulder are requiring 1-2 bike parking spaces per unit.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:24 PM

Page 633 - 1

Bike parking should be required for all multi-family developments, no exceptions.

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Tuck-under Parking.

Given the low FAR and low impervious cover limits in addition to the parking requirements, preventing tuck-under makes missing middle infeasible.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:27 PM

Provides visual buffering that safeguards and enhances property values

Does the city want to tout this idea in the context the of mass displacement and gentrification occurring due to rising property values in Austin?

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:34 PM

This section establishes the landscaping requirements between the front building facade and the adjacent public right-of-way. Figure 23-3D-3040(1)(Front Yard Planting) illustrate this section’s requirements.

Landscaping requirements are exclusionary and cater to traditional ideas of American neighborhoods. This places a financial burden on some families and is unsustainable in our current climate crisis, especially the drought occurring in Central Texas.

Posted by ryanmnill Oct 05th 10:34 AM

23-3D-10040 Dwelling Unit Occupancy Limit (A) Except as otherwise provided by this section or by another requirement of this Title, not more than six unrelated adults may reside in a dwelling unit. (B) In approving an application for a conditional use permit, the Land Use Commission may approve an occupancy above the limit imposed in this section. (C) In no case may the number of occupants exceed limitations established in the Property Maintenance Code, Section 404 (Occupancy Limitations).

The current code has provision allowing seniors to be exempt from occupancy limits. That section is 25-2-511 (B), which is not here the new draft LDC.

Also we would like to see the occupancy limits raised in general. According to council direction to increase housing capacity.

Posted by robert.m.fostr Oct 05th 10:11 PM

Include six dwelling units if the existing zoning on the site is Residential 4 (R4) or more restrictive. (3) A Type 2 qualifying development may: (a) Construct to a height that is the applicable base zoning district height limit multiplied by 1.5; and (b) Include eight dwelling units if the site is located within a Residential 4 (R4) or more restrictive zone.

This is the only place with R3 and more restrictive zoning bonus. This should be worked into the default AHBP.

Posted by info Oct 05th 10:50 PM

Fifteen Percent Urban Core Cap

Per Council’s policy direction, code revisions should include: “For parcels within activity centers and on activity corridors, application of non-zoning regulations should be prioritized in a manner that allows for greater potential housing unit yields than would otherwise be achieved without prioritization.”

Even with the urban core cap, parkland dedication requirements may still negatively impact unit yields on key corridor and center properties. For properties that are located on an Imagine Austin Corridor or ASMP Transit Priority Network Roadway, the city should consider providing the applicant the authority to decide whether to dedicate or pay fee in lieu. Many of these properties are complicated infill projects for which parkland dedication could mean a significant reduction of units in areas where Council has explicitly prioritized unit yields in specific areas (on corridors) over non-zoning regulations such as this.

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:36 PM

(1) Remove or impact a regulated tree without obtaining the city arborist’s review and approval under this article; or

Regulated tree by this definition now includes “keystone trees” which are any trees over 8-inch diameter, so now to remove any tree over 8-inches in diameter I have to go through arborist application/review? How much would this process cost to remove an invasive chinaberry or scrub hackberry tree that happens to be over 8 inches in diameter?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:03 PM

) A development application on property zoned R2A, R2B, R2C, or R3 may count keystone trees towards tree planting or mitigation requirements.

We need to be working to maximize the value, effectiveness of our new transition zones to help deliver as many missing middle units as we can to address affordability, sustainability and equity issues, so prioritizing or helping smaller scaled zones, which have much more flexibility to squeeze in the lower units over the transition-zoned categories undercuts the stated AHBP and council direction goals.

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:53 PM

(B) An application proposing to remove or impact a keystone tree associated with a development application is not required if the property is zoned R2A, R2B, R2C, or R3. (C) A development application on property zoned R2A, R2B, R2C, or R3 may count keystone trees towards tree planting or mitigation requirements.

Why carve out residential house scaled zones up to R3 from enforcement of new smaller tree regs and not exempt small-scaled missing middle which we want to help get built in R4 and RM1? By adding this new regulation on the small residential lots in transition zones where we want to see missing middle units built, this increases the complexity, cost and feasibility, making the units harder to fit into these old established lots and, even where they can be, will result in more expensive, more complex to design and build structures that directly increase the rent/price of those units.

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:48 PM

23-4C-2030 Keystone Trees

The creation of another protected tree category further complicates development process, and by adding trees 8-inches or larger to have to go through the arborist review process and not just requiring mitigation for removing one during planning process, adds another layer of complexity and cost for both city and owners.

Posted by robert.m.fostr Oct 05th 10:55 PM

Former Title 25. A density bonus request in the Former 25 (F25) Zone, established in Section 23-3C-9090 (Former Title 25 (F25) Zone), shall be subject to the requirements and density bonus incentives, if any, as available under Former Title 25.

Given that F25 encompasses large swaths of Central Austin, an affordable housing bonus should be created for these neighborhoods or the standard should apply.

Posted by ki Oct 05th 10:02 PM

Affirmative Marketing. Each development will have an affirmative marketing and outreach plan for the length of the affordability period, approved by the director, that is consistent with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. This plan will ensure that developments have in place affirmative fair housing marketing policies in soliciting buyers and tenants, in determining their eligibility, and in concluding sales and rental transactions. The plan will include ways to publicize or market the availability of housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income households and to protected classes, as well as information on fair housing laws and protections.

It seems like there should be some language that the marketing plan scales with the size of the development. A 10 unit development will have a different size marketing plan and budget than a 5,000 unit development.

Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:39 PM

Page 839 - 2

It is very bad that there is zero access to density bonuses in the northwest portion of downtown. Allowing denser construction in downtown should be a no-brainer.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:40 PM

Page 946 - 1

Everything that is under Residential House-Scale zoning should not need a site plan. It should be just under residential review. If you can build a 6000 sq.ft. McMansion without a site plan, you should be able to build a smaller building with multiple units. Multiple units should not trigger site plans.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:27 PM

Technical Requirements. The director shall base right-of-way alignment on engineering criteria related to the safe use and maintenance of public right-of-way, including grade, sight distance, turning radii, curvature, existing green infrastructure, and the existence of flood plain or wildfire hazards. These criteria are primary considerations to be used in determining right-of-way alignment and are controlling over other criteria in the event of conflict.

Studies show that basing safety criteria on engineering standards favor auto uses, which creates unsafe situations for pedestrians and nonmotorized uses. Consider referring to the ASMP and Vision Zero instead of traditional engineering standards.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:52 PM

To determine a street’s existing trip count, the director shall rely on most recent data or establish a current trip count based on generally accepted guidelines.

The “most recent data” does not accurately predict transit and nonmotorized uses because of historic trends where the automobile dominates transportation in Austin. Relying on old standards will not lead to a 5050 mode split in 20 years.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:49 PM

To determine the vehicle trips associated with a land use or mix of uses, the director shall base the calculation on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and standards adopted in the Transportation Criteria Manual.

This WILL NOT help achieve a 5050 mode split by 2039 as called for by the May Council directives and the ASMP. The ITE favors automobile travel and bases its models on past trends, which neglects the growth of transit and nonmotorized uses. This has to be reconsidered or else this code with not work in accordance to the ASMP.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:02 PM

Projected multi-modal traffic generated by a proposed development

Using the ITE models will not give an accurate depiction of multi-modal traffic generation, this contradicts with earlier code text.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:07 PM

Active Modes Analysis. An analysis that identifies existing and potential opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle connections between a proposed development and adjoining transportation facilities suitable for pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Contradictions earlier call for using ITE trip prediction models

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:25 PM

Evaluate the existing and projected operating multi-modal level of service of identified residential streets;

Evaluations based on level of service detract from measuring accessibility, which is stressed in the ASMP and May council directive.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:33 PM

Reducing the density or intensity of the development, to the extent necessary to ensure that the capacity of the street network can safely accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development.

This wholeheartedly does not fit with the ASMP. It is a false assumption that increasing density will negatively impact the street network. This goes back to ITE trip calculators, which neglect transit and nonmotorized uses. The street network, when expanded to include pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, can more than accommodate increased intensities. And increased density and mixed use, which this code generally calls for, will reduce the need for transportation thus reducing the stress on the street network. This needs serious reconsideration.

Posted by nsguko Oct 05th 10:37 PM

Table 23-9A-3020(A) Amount of Cost Participation (Water)

Adding the 6” and 8” pipe to this table is unnecessary and may. These diameters are so close in function that upsizing to an 8” when a 6” is required is advisable and should not be penalized. The current code supports this. Additionally the 2019 revised table does not specify cost of participation for pipes over 48” whereas the current code addresses this scenario.