Council or Planning Commission

Posted by kevin.mclaughlin70 Oct 14th 10:09 PM

unless the general provision was adopted more recently and the manifest intent of the city council was for the general provision to apply.

This resolves the NCCD issue that the ADU ordinance had.

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 pete.gilcrease Oct 06th 10:06 PM

(A) The Planning Director shall initiate the formation of a Neighborhood Plan Contact Team.

The recent Audit of Neighborhood Plans and Contact Teams finds that our current neighborhood planning processes are “inequitable and have lacked robust and representative participation,” that neighborhood planning contact teams (NPCTs) “create barriers to public engagement and representative decision-making,” that neighborhood “plans are not consistent with some elements of Imagine Austin,” and that “fair housing choice has not been specifically considered in most neighborhood planning efforts.” While the Audit acknowledges these flaws, it does not provide adequate recommendations to remedy them.

The Audit’s conclusions show that the current neighborhood planning process undermines the vision of inclusive neighborhoods with an abundance and full diversity of people. Our neighborhoods should not be exclusive enclaves for incumbents, and the interests of any particular neighborhood should never trump the interests of the citywide community.

City officials should expand the neighborhood planning process to include all neighborhood stakeholders, and to remove the special status it currently bestows on NPCTs. Furthermore, city planners should embrace as important stakeholders renters and the families who aspire to live in our neighborhoods.

Remove the Special Status Bestowed Upon NPCTs

It’s recommends that city officials no longer give NPCTs special privileges in the neighborhood planning process, and that city officials should empower planning staff to exercise their professional experience and expertise as they consider input from all members of the community and ultimately make recommendations to boards, commissions, and the City Council. The existing notification process enables stakeholders within a given neighborhood or nearby area to provide input, support, or opposition to variances or other development. City staff can employ this same notification process to solicit input for neighborhood planning decisions. City staff could expand the notification mechanism to enable stakeholders outside these proximity-based zones to register for notifications, ensuring everyone is heard and the process is professional, inclusive, and fair.

The 10-1 representation on the City Council, having brought the geographic representation the city once lacked, has rendered the special status of NPCTs unnecessary. NPCTs have become harmful to the goals of an inclusive city that strives to represent all stakeholders, especially the renters who compose a majority of our city and are sometimes excluded from these groups entirely.

Suspend and Reform NPCTs

If the City Council decides to not eliminate NPCTs’ special status, then it’s recommended to suspend the NPCTs’ special status until they have taken steps to ensure they are more representative of the full diversity of neighborhood stakeholders. City officials can then reinstate NPCTs as they demonstrate they have implemented these steps.

1) City staff should be assigned to oversee each NPCT. The assigned staff member shall attend and facilitate all meetings, functions, oversee eligible voter rosters, and take the place and function of current officer positions on NPCTs. 2) NPCTs should be required to have representation from all stakeholder groups for a quorum, including renters, homeowners, and business owners. 3) NPCTs should have a minimum participation from stakeholders in the planning area. 4) NPCTs should be required to use online voting to allow easy participation for all stakeholders. 5) NPCTs should eliminate mandatory attendance requirements and other barriers to participation that disenfranchise stakeholders. 6) For neighborhood plans to remain valid, they should be required to go through a review and updating process. If a complete review is not done within one year, then the plans should be considered invalid and removed from the land development code. 7) Neighborhood plans should be required to align with Imagine Austin when going through the review process before they are reinstated and after reinstatement. 8) Neighborhood plans should be required to meet fair housing requirements when going through the review process before they are reinstated and after reinstatement. 9) NPCTs should be required to determine where more density should be allowed by right in their planning areas based on projected future growth of the city and improvement in Imagine Austin’s complete communities indicators. Opportunity for Affordability, Equity, and Diversity

Austin’s continuing growth, and its transformation into a fully realized urban environment, requires its citizens to reconsider how Austin can best deliver on goals of equity, diversity, and opportunity for all of its residents. Decades of land use policies that were originally based on segregation have calcified Austin’s neighborhood development, leading to its current status as the most segregated city in the country.

As the recent audit completed by the City of Austin confirms, it is imperative that we as a city fix this broken component of the land development process. Removing NPCTs’ special status, and enacting more complete ways for stakeholders to be heard, provide opportunities for Austin to show it is serious in addressing its long history of social inequities and injustices.

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 kevin.mclaughlin70 Oct 06th 10:04 PM

Qualifies as an affordable housing project under Article 23-4E (Affordable Housing);


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 10:16 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 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 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 10:11 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 10:17 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 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 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 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 agh Oct 05th 10:34 PM

Maximum Number of Parking Spaces

Given the climate crisis, it is good that there are parking maximums.

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:46 AM

(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.

Nice to see parking maximums being proposed - is there room to push for the more restrictive parking maximum (1.25 times the minimum) listed in point two more broadly across the city in the new code?

Posted by robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:37 PM

Page 297 - 3

Preserving existing housing stock while encouraging the addition of dwelling units seems to be a win-win!

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 10:22 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 robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:27 PM

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

Yes! More affordable housing everywhere also means the ‘burbs. Making current areas of sprawl denser can prevent further sprawl and may make those areas more suited to self-sustaining public transportation infrastructure that could be tied into a regional network.

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 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 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 10:57 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 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 agh Oct 05th 10:44 PM

(7) Restaurant and Bars

It seems dangerous to require parking for bars.

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 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 dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:28 PM

Drive-Through, Retail, or Service Facility

It is very good that drive-throughs are banned in DC and CC. There are still very current attempts to build these but they are bad for downtown environments.

Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:22 PM

Parking Required. Regional Center zones do not require off-street parking.

This is very good! There should not be parking requirements in any of these zones.

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 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 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 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 info Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Downtown Plan Overlay

This overlay appears to implement a number of provisions provided in the Downtown Austin Plan, adopted in 2011. These should be reviewed within the context of city policies that have been adopted since then, including Imagine Austin, Strategic Housing Blueprint, ASMP, and the policy direction for the LDC Re-write, to ensure all of these policies are still consistent with Austin’s goals.

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 robert.sotolar Oct 05th 10:28 PM

23-3C-10130 University Neighborhood Overlay (A) Purpose. The purpose of the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) is to promote high density redevelopment in the area generally west of the University of Texas campus, encourage affordable housing, provide a mechanism for the creation of a densely populated but livable and pedestrian-friendly environment, and protect the character of the predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods adjacent to the zone.

This model seems to be working to increase density in the West Campus area. Is there a way we can promote this type of overlay as a model other areas in the city to City Council?

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 07th 10:15 PM

Only one ADU may be built per site, and the total dwelling units per lot shall not exceed the density permitted by the base zone . (a) Exception . Additional units may be allowed in compliance with the Preservation Incentive if permitted by the base zone .

Please specify in the exception that 2 adus can be built using the preservation incentive. Otherwise you can’t do this on lots that don’t allow duplexes. And if two detached houses exist you can’t do this without tearing down at least one house.

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 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 10:17 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 10:24 PM

Page 633 - 1

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

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 10:27 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 ewise23 Oct 05th 10:11 PM

Functional Green Landscape is a two-tiered approach to fulfilling the purpose of the landscape code. The first tier requires landscape elements to be placed in specified areas of a site, thus protecting private and public investment, providing visual buffering, limiting overcrowding, and enhancing property values. The second tier is a scoring system that measures the ecosystem service value created by landscape; it is intended to improve ecological balance, replenish native vegetation, and enhance public health, safety, and welfare.

Consider switching tier 2 with tier 1. Social issues and benefits should come before economic issues and benefits. The city works for the people, not economics.

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 10:33 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 10:29 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 10:39 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 10:32 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 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 10:59 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 10:53 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 10:17 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 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 ewise23 Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Adjacent and Abutting Streets. For a street required adjacent to or abutting a proposed development, the City may require that up to the entire right-of-way be dedicated and improved to city design standards depending on

More good transportation code text, it is great that landowners must improve the entire right-of-way. This will help complete the sidewalk system.

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 10:31 PM

The purpose of reserving right-of-way is to avoid conflicts between new development and future transportation improvements for which acquisition of right-of-way may be required by the City or another governmental entity.

Good, conforms with the ASMP.

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 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.

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.

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?