Unclear

Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:21 PM

An additional number of units is allowed for a qualifying development certified under Section 23-3E-1080 (Application Procedures) and participating in the Affordability Unlocked Bonus Program, as provided under Section 23-3D-10090 (Affordability Unlocked Density Bonus).

The text is unclear as to whether you can exceed eight units and if so, by how many units.


Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:22 PM

If an appeal concerns issues with potential to affect individuals or groups who are not parties to the appeal or otherwise entitled to notification, the director may provide additional notice to those individuals or groups.

The level of discretion here is unclear as to which interested parties will be informed.


Posted by benjaminsteele Oct 05th 10:24 PM

Page 173 - 1

Are “other individuals” members of the general public or do they have to have the standing to be involved in the administrative process?


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:19 PM

corridors and in nodes

“Nodes” does this mean “centers” or is it consistently used and/or defined elsewhere in the code?


Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:31 PM

The floor area of new dwelling units does not count against the FAR limit for uses in the zone.

Should it say that the preserved dwelling does not count toward FAR?


Posted by tannerblair Oct 05th 10:37 PM

Duplex 4 +4

Wouldn’t the base standard for a duplex be 2?


Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:28 PM

Table 23-3C-4060(A) Lot Size and Intensity

I don’t understand why this zone is different from the other RM zones in that intensity is not done by units per acre. I would say either have unit caps everywhere, have intensity caps everywhere, or have neither.


Posted by agh Oct 05th 10:44 PM

Page 335 - 1

I can’t follow as to why RM2 is separate from RM1. It seems like combining to reduce the complexity of the code would be good.


Posted by tvossber Oct 05th 10:31 PM

Maximum Floor Area Ratio. (a) The maximum FAR for a lot may not exceed the highest FAR allowed in the zone for a permitted use, unless: (i) Additional FAR is obtained by participation in a density bonus program; or (ii) Additional FAR is obtained by utilization of the Preservation Incentive

This applies to all Main Street Zones and references FAR but none of the Main Street Zones have FAR limits. This appears inconsistent or redundant.


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

(C) F25 Rezoning Policy. In order to achieve consistency with the current regulations of this Title and minimize reliance on prior regulations, the City’s preferred policy is to: (1) Rezone properties within the F25 Zone to current zones established in this Title.

What will be the process for rezoning areas currently zoned “F25” (think Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts) to align with the Land Development Code re-write?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:06 PM

A site is part of a TDM program as described in 23-8C-2020 (Transportation Demand Management) that allows multiple parking reductions, then the maximum cumulative parking reduction is 100 percent.

needs an “or” to move to the next section of the code

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:02 PM

B) Maximum Parking Adjustment.

Wordiness is due to code text quotes This section is confusing and has multiple issues. To understand this section you must refer to multiple tables dispersed throughout the code. Consider duplicating the tables in the section for easier understanding. The use of “or” in 23-3D-2050 (B) (ii) [“the proposed development is connected to a corridor by an accessible sidewalk system; or”] makes it unclear as to which requirement (23-3D-2050 (B) ii OR iii) applies. 23-3D-2050 (B) (ii) is more exclusionary than 23-3D-2050 (B) (iii) [“is rated “Very High” or “High” in the Sidewalk Prioritzation Map as defined in the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan.”] and would prevent 23-3D-2050 (B) (i) [“any portion of the site is within a Center or within ¼ mile of a Corridor or Center, measuring in a straight line from the centerline of the Corridor or edge of Center to the site; and”] and 23-3D-2050 (B) (iii) from being implemented in many areas.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:39 PM

Routes of travel that connect the accessible elements of the site.

Clarify what “routes of travel” refers to.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:20 PM

(D) Functional Green Score.

Move to beginning of section, will make understanding the requirements for Functional Green Landscape clear and help the readability of the code.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:18 PM

ECM Appendix N

What is the ECM and Appendix N is not included in this draft.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:17 PM

Environmental Criteria Manual

This is written elsewhere as ECM, for consistency introduce as “Environmental Criteria Manual” then use ECM in all other situations.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:31 PM

An area of private personal open space at ground level must contain at least 100 square feet and may not be less than 10 feet across in each direction.

Could I have an 8X12? The each direction part is unclear, it is possible to have at least 100 square feet in dimensions other than 10x10.


Posted by info Oct 05th 10:35 PM

the director may require that a reasonable portion of the total impervious cover permitted on the site be allocated to the dedicated parkland

This language has been brought forward from the current code. However, “a reasonable portion” is unclear – staff should consider developing a more definite limit on the amount that can be required (for instance, based on average impervious cover provided in city parks today).


Posted by atalbert Oct 05th 10:32 PM

(A) The city arborist may request that a city department administratively modify a policy, rule, or design standard to the extent necessary to preserve a regulated tree if enforcement will otherwise result in removal or removal by impact. (B) At the city arborist’s request, a responsible director may administratively modify the applicable policy, rule, or design standard if the director determines that a waiver or modification will not pose a threat to public safety.

The applicant/owner can’t request a modification to preserve a tree? What would be an example of allowing a modification that would be a threat to public safety? Would allowing a building to start before the front setback line, or extend into a side street setback (for example) to fit in the units and save a tree/trees be something that was considered safe enough to be allowed. Would there be criteria/standard modification options to attempt to save trees (ie, additional height, FAR, encroaching into setbacks, waiving of compatibility) that could make the process far less opaque and give property owners visibility and flexibility of knowing what options might ever be allowed, and what wouldn’t.


Posted by robert.m.fostr Oct 05th 10:59 PM

Where multiple bonuses are applicable, the maximum calculated bonus area or bonus units apply.

Does this mean the highest of the bonuses or do the bonuses compound?


Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:58 PM

However, the city manager may from time to time delegate particular functions to one or more other city departments, which shall control over the general delegation in this subsection.

This statement could use clarity/specificity. Do “function” and “subsection” refer to the same thing? Can a single function be delegated to more than one city department? Is the city manager delegating the ability of general delegation?

Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:54 PM

Title, from building permits for single structures to more complex approvals that affect larger areas or implicate specialized development regulations

“implicate” is probably not the best word here.


Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:57 PM

Single-Family Construction. Construction or alteration of a single-family residential land use structure, single-family attached land use or duplex residential land use structure, an accessory dwelling unit, or an accessory structure

I’d suggest changing the bold text for 23-6B-1030.D.1 from “Single-Family Construction” to “Residential Construction of One to Two Units”. On the previous page, 23-6B-1030.C.2.l mentions “Residential Construction of Three to Eight Units.”. As the bold text reads now, it’s unclear where duplexes are covered.


Posted by mike_nahas Oct 05th 10:29 PM

the centerline of the proposed tower

The “centerline” in radio is defined as “the perpendicular bisector of the line connecting two radio transmitters.” If there is another definition in construction, it is not listed in the dictionary. (There is a definition for centerline of a road.) I don’t think you need to use “centerline” here, “center” should suffice.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:57 AM

Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Transportation Plan by:

It would be more powerful to name the “Transportation Plan” - the ASMP was passed last spring and should be named in the code.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:20 PM

The director shall require an initial demonstration that a proposed development will be adequately served by transportation infrastructure when the first application depicting a specific plan for development is submitted. Depending on the nature of the proposed development and the adequacy of existing transportation infrastructure, an evaluation of right-of-way needs under this section may be required for:

Language is too complex and vague, consider simplifying.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:48 PM

A subdivision or site plan may have only one point of access if the director determines that:

For pedestrians or automobiles? This transportation section is highly auto-centric and the language of the whole chapter should be reconsidered to include nonmotorized uses.