Question

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

Except as provided in Subsection (A)(1), the Zoning and Platting Commission shall act as the Land Use Commission on applications related to property not with an area identified under Subsection (A)(2).

Is Subsection (A)(2) the correct subsection or should it be (A)(3)?


Posted by josiahstevenson Oct 05th 10:40 PM

Page 76 - 1

Does this mean that some Affordability Unlocked projects might qualify for site plan lite even if above eight units?


Posted by kevin.mclaughlin70 Oct 06th 10:49 PM

500 feet

Instead of 500 feet, can we just say “no more than state law requires”?


Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:13 PM

To initiate an appeal under this article, a notice of appeal must be filed on a form prescribed by the director and must include

This is probably useful in process to challenge spurious appeals


Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:18 PM

(A) A timely filed appeal tolls the expiration period for the application or approval associated with the decision under appeal.

The appeal deadline opens (we’ll say 14 days). An appeal is filed on day 1. The appeal process goes through over such-and-such time period and is now closed in favor of the approved project. There are now 13 more days in which another appeal may be filed?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:46 PM

MU5A Mixed-Use 5A 23-3C-5100 MU5B Mixed-Use 5B 23-3C-5110

Difference between MU5A and MU5B? And is there no way to use COs or some other mechanism to enforce difference?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:45 PM

Table 23-3A-2020(B) Residential Multi-Unit Zones

Was there ever an attempt/desire to simplify RM and MU to allow mixed use and have only one shared category, since they are generally the same size/scale buildings?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:59 PM

(A) If a site is divided by a zone boundary, the regulation of each zone applies to the portion of the site located in that zone

Is this normal? Is this how we do it currently, or a change?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:02 PM

(A) This division establishes procedures for land use permits

“Land Use Permit”—Is this a new term? What is it replacing?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:06 PM

(d) A retail use that does not provide:

Retail temporary use permits? Examples of non-seasonal (Christmas tree sales) of this?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:04 PM

(d) A single dwelling located in a mobile structure on a construction site.

How long can the mobile dwelling stay on the construction site?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:08 PM

Posting of Interpretations. The director shall post code interpretations on the City’s website.

Where on the website will the interpretations be?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:11 PM

(iii) a petition of the owners of at least 51 percent of the land, measured by land area, in the proposed zone or at least 51 percent of the owners of individual properties in the proposed zone.

Is this a change to the petition process? Why both options to trigger? To make it easier/harder? Which is normally used?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:12 PM

If the amendment is part of an area-wide or district-level planning process

Difference between area-wide or district-level planning process?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:15 PM

An interested party or registered party may request one postponement for a period of no more than 60 days from the date of the scheduled public hearing

Is this process (7 day notice, an interested or registered party may request one postponement for no more than 60 days from scheduled public hearing) the same as it is currently?

Do any changes address the constant postponement culture?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:16 PM

In determining whether the findings required under Subsection (B) have been met, the Board may consider limitations on developable area resulting from the presence of heritage trees, protected trees, or other environmental features.

Is the same process for allowing variances related to trees?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:20 PM

Zones require a vertical mix of uses along corridors and in nodes with increased walkability

What defines “nodes with increased walkability? Wouldn’t allowing/requiring pedestrian use on ground floor create increased walkability?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:21 PM

additional discretionary approval or licensure including a license agreement or encroachment agreement.

What are these and where do they apply?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:23 PM

BED AND BREAKFAST. The use of a residential structure to provide rooms for temporary lodging for overnight guests on a paying basis.

Food service not required (limited or allowed?) Limits on bedrooms or total guests? Ability to have owners suite/cottage on site? Guest limits? Mixed on same lot with other residential uses?


Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:13 PM

Senior/ Retirement Housing 0.8 per unit

This seems high. Does the data show that seniors still own and operate cars at the same rate as others?


Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:36 PM

Page 297 - 2

Does “new dwelling units” apply to ADUs?

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:34 PM

Page 297 - 1

If we’re trying to encourage more housing units across the city, why are we being so prescriptive about how much adding more habitable space can cost here?


Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:59 PM

23-3C-3110 Residential 2C (R2C) Zone (A) Purpose. Residential 2C (R2C) zone is intended to allow detached housing with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or duplexes on small lots throughout the city.

I’m curious if Council Staff can articulate a rationale for why certain areas would be zoned the more restrictive “Residential 1” (R1) - see page 305 - vs. this “Residential 2C” (R2C) zoning. If the reasoning for leaving areas in the more restrictive R1 zoning is neighborhood sensitivity, perhaps we can push City Council to be bold and stay faithful to their stated intent with this code of a more affordable Austin?


Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:34 PM

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

Why is this? Does this mean that a three-plex that has a single entrance with a foyer would not be allowed?


Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:57 PM

(B) Maximum Number of Parking Spaces. (1) Developments over 10,000 square feet in floor area or containing 25 or more residential units may not exceed 1.75 times the minimum number of parking spaces required. Maximum is calculated prior to any applicable parking reductions. (2) Lots with frontage on a Corridor or wholly or partially located within a Center may not exceed 1.25 times the minimum number of parking spaces required. Maximum is calculated prior to any applicable parking reductions.

Could we float the idea to Staff or Council of rewarding developers or homeowners who forgo parking entitlements (under the code max or maybe even under code minimums, in both cases contingent on building integration into the public transport network or on-site bike storage and other pedestrian-friendly features) with a density bonus?


Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:36 PM

Table 23-3C-7070(I) Additional Standards (1) Construction (a) A building must achieve at least a one-star rating under the Austin Energy Green Building program in accordance with Chapter 1-2 (Adoption of Rules) of Title 1 (General Provisions).

How does this compare to current code? How expensive is it for developers to comply with?


Posted by pete.gilcrease Oct 05th 10:34 PM

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the ordinances listed in Paragraph (3)(a), development within an NCCD is subject to: (i) Section 23-3D-1030 (Accessory Dwelling Unit - Residential); and (ii) Section 23-3D-2050 (Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions).

How do ADU and parking regulations override the NCCDs since NCCDs are still in the old code? Without amending the NCCDs it’s not clear if simply mentioning these things in the new code will have any impact since the two codes are completely separate from each other. The NCCDs themselves most likely need to be amended for these changes to actually take place. This same thing happened with the city wide ADU ordinance a few years ago. The city passed the “city wide” changes, but because the NCCDs were mistakenly not amended these changes didn’t apply to NCCDs.

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

(3) Modifications to NCCD Development Standards. (a) The regulations in this paragraph apply to portions of the F25 Zone located within the: (i) Hyde Park NCCD, adopted by Ordinance No. 020131-20; (ii) North Hyde Park NCCD, adopted by Ordinance No. 20050818-064 and amended by Ordinance Nos. 20050929-073 and 20051006-Z018; (iii) North University NCCD, adopted by Ordinance No. 040826-58 and amended by Ordinance No. 20081120-026; and (iv) Fairview Park NCCD, adopted by Ordinance No. 19860807-H and amended by Ordinance Nos. 20030717-119 and 20100923-120. (b) Notwithstanding any provision of the ordinances listed in Paragraph (3)(a), development within an NCCD is subject to: (i) Section 23-3D-1030 (Accessory Dwelling Unit - Residential); and (ii) Section 23-3D-2050 (Off-Street Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions).

Does this mean that all these areas would permit ADUs going forward?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:38 PM

Routes of travel that connect the accessible elements of the site; and

Are “routes of travel” sidewalks or interior paths within the property?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:15 PM

For non-residential uses, loading docks, overhead doors, and other service entries must be screened and not be located on a primary street facade.

When do residential uses require loading docks?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:02 PM

Division 23-3D-3: Landscape

How will all of these requirements be enforced?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:29 PM

The development restores a building designated as a historic landmark

Why does landscaping not apply to historic structures?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:40 PM

Surface parking lots shall include parking tree islands.

Trees are expensive, will there be programs to help small scale builders pay for the required trees?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:42 PM

Optional.

When do these optional requirements apply?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:05 PM

An intermittent visual obstruction buffer is a compatibility buffer, is at least 20 feet in height, and creates the appearance of spatial separation but does not eliminate the visual contact between properties.

Where will this buffer be used? Which zones? Which land uses?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:04 PM

A semi-opaque buffer is a compatibility buffer, is at least six feet in height, and creates the appearance of spatial separation but does not eliminate visual contact between properties.

Where will this buffer be used? Which zones? Which land uses?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:03 PM

An opaque buffer is a compatibility buffer, is at least 20 feet in height, prevents visual contact between uses, and creates the appearance of total separation.

Where will this type of buffer be used? What zones? What land uses?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:39 PM

Common open space that is located above ground level may be covered if, at least one exterior side is open and unobstructed. A side is not obstructed if railings or balustrades are installed.

Is there a section in the build code that mandates “railings or balustrades” for raised open spaces? If so what is the section. If not, it should be mandated.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:03 PM

An engaged porch may not encroach into a required setback.

Inconsistent with 23-3D-5110(D) which states “An encroachment agreement is required to encroach into the public right-of-way.” Why is an encroachment agreement not allowed with engaged porches?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:48 PM

Dead-end walls are not permitted.

What is a “Dead-end wall”


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:34 PM

c. Damaging the critical root zone; and

Any part of the CRZ? On referring to same impacts as current code (ie, no lower than 4-inches in 12 CRZ, no more than half of CRZ outside of 12 radius)

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:33 PM

Small Public Tree. A public tree that has a DBH of at least 4 inches or a planted public tree of any diameter.

Invasive trees and scrub trees that are in the public right of way, sidewalk easement, are now given protected status and add time, cost and complexity of full arborist review?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:31 PM

Public Tree. A tree that has at least two thirds of its trunk diameter located on real property owned or controlled by the city.

Another new term and type of regulated tree?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:29 PM

Keystone Tree. A tree that has a DBH of at least 8 inches, but less than 19 inches.

This is a new category. Was it necessary to add another category of tree? Were the old regulations not resulting in desired results?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:37 PM

The director shall adopt administrative rules to implement this article. In consultation with the Transportation and Public Works directors, the director shall adopt administrative rules to implement the street tree regulations in Article 23-8E (Street Tree Requirements).

Draft administrative rules? Timeline? Effects? Any different than what we have now administratively, and if so what are the added goals?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:41 PM

(B) The review and inspection fees may be waived if the application is for:

“MAY” be waived—meaning staff has discretion, or it will be waived if below conditions are met?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:39 PM

The city arborist shall review all applications to remove or impact a regulated tree for compliance with this article.

Based on the above definition of “regulated tree” the process scope is being enlarged significantly. Do we know or have any idea on how many additional trees/decision/inspection points we are talking about adding the small public trees and “keystone” trees to this process?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:59 PM

(4) The tree prevents reasonable use of the property; or

In regards to protected trees, how to we balance our desire to get more affordable and market affordable missing middle units in the new R4/RM1 zones vs. preserving a tree that negatively impacts building placement/unit yield on a lot?

Is it reasonable for a protected tree to keep a transit accesible, high opportunity lot from delivering 10 units, when say it could only fit 4?

Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:55 PM

(4) Removal of the tree cannot be avoided through minor changes to a development, such as grading, access, parking, or landscape island configuration, that would not change building layout or number of units; or

Does this mean that “keystone trees” will be approved for removal/impact if their placement is on the site where a building will be going?


Posted by robert.m.fostr Oct 05th 10:17 PM

Must be deed-restricted to achieve at least the same affordability period and income restrictions as the project accessing the Affordable Housing Bonus and may include any combination of new units or units in an existing structure;

What prevents the affordable units for a downtown high rise being tiny dilapidated(but still up to code) units from the 70s? Would seem against the spirit of the law for a building with 900 sq ft one bedrooms to provide 400 sq ft one bedrooms as their affordable units without any of the amenities? How many extra units would be fair for us to ask for in this case?

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

Occupancy Conversion.

How will we prevent abuse of this? Technically, an ownership unit could be converted to a rental unit after 40 years and not have to be affordable. Then it could be sold the next year as a market rate ownership unit right?


Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:12 PM

A plan review determination under this section does not authorize construction, but constitutes a final determination as to the type of review process required for a proposed development.

Does “final” here mean that staff cannot change their mind or that applicants cannot appeal the decision? Or both? If staff later determines that a limited site plan is no longer appropriate and they want to see a full site plan, how do they do that?


Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:32 PM

For a demolition, the foundation or structure does not cover more than 10,000 square feet

This sentence covers when a demolition can use the limited site plan application. It says if the foundation is more than 10,000 sq. ft. then the applicant must apply for a full site plan. A 10,000 sq. ft. foundation seems like a strange cut-off. I would expect aspect that pose a danger to workers, like the height of the structure being demolished. I’d also expect aspect that pose a danger to nearby structures or people: like the nearness of other structures, the nearness of property boundaries, and the demolition methods being used. While the director has discretion of the decision, this seems like a strange reason for overruling the discretion.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:24 PM

Except as provided in Subsection (B)(2), a subdivision plat or a site plan may not provide for direct access from a lot to a major street unless the lot contains 330 feet or more of frontage on the major street and alternative access is not available.

Access for automobiles or pedestrians?


Posted by nsguko Oct 05th 10:35 PM

(C) If the property owner decreases the number of service units for a development under an unexpired site plan, the property owner is entitled to a credit of the impact fee at that property for the amounts represented by the decrease in service units based on the fee to be collected for each service unit and credits or discounts in effect at the time the fee was paid.

The current code states a refund is due the developer if service units decrease. The draft now states a credit to the developer instead. Does this mean a refund would be issued or is does the city keep the balance and apply it to future developments with this developer?