Highlights

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 10:11 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 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 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 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 10:34 PM

Page 294 - 1

Yay!


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 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 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 agh Oct 05th 10:44 PM

(7) Restaurant and Bars

It seems dangerous to require parking for bars.


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 lwimberley Oct 05th 10:28 PM

(1) If detached, minimum 6' to the front, rear, or side of the primary structure or above a detached garage; may be connected to the primary structure with a covered walkway;

This is a vast improvement over the current ADU placement rules.


Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:44 PM

23-3D-1180 Duplex (A) Configuration. (1) The two units must be attached;

Thank you for getting rid of the zipper wall. That was an wholly unnecessary restriction.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:34 PM

These requirements address the parking needs of new land uses and development in a manner that is consistent with the desired character and development patterns of the community and as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan

Add: and the ASMP. Parking is a large section in the new transportation plan.


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 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 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 10:53 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 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 10:20 AM

Page 1101 - 1

This is excellent for future CapMetro uses, way to go staff working within the ASMP


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 10:33 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 10:50 PM

A permittee shall pay the cost of relocating a public utility’s storm water drainage improvement, water and waste water mains and facilities, electrical equipment, traffic signal equipment, communications equipment, or trees required by the permittee’s proposed construction.

There should be a timeline associated with the reinstallation of transportation facilities. Ex. the protected bike lane along Rio Grande through West Campus has been removed for construction, and after construction has been completed is still missing.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:52 PM

The director may require partial or complete closure of an existing driveway, consistent with the Transportation Criteria Manual, if the director determines that impacts of the driveway on the adjoining street network pose a threat to public safety.

Excellent, improves safety and works with the ASMP.


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 dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:45 PM

1. GROSS (GFA). The total enclosed area of all floors in a building with a clear height of more than five feet, measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls. The term excludes loading docks, porches, stoops, basements, attics, stories below grade plane, parking facilities, driveways, and enclosed loading berths and off-street maneuvering areas.

Above-grade parking facilities should be included in Gross Floor Area, and FARs in zones which frequently include above-grade parking facilities should be increased to match. See https://austinonyourfeet.com/2019/09/09/the-regulations-we-need-to-parktheplinth/