Questions


Request From Year Status  

No. Requestor Year Received Subject Question Status Answer
1 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Resolution 20170126-038 Preservation of Affordable Housing
Council Resolution 20170126-038 addresses the fact that the vast majority of Austin’s existing affordable housing (62,000 units) are privately owned, non-subsidized older housing. The resolution directs the City Manager to have CodeNext staff and consultants evaluate how proposed CodeNext site development standards, zoning classifications, and mapping changes could impact market and income-restricted affordable housing. When do staff or consultants expect to complete that analysis?
Pending  
2 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Projected Housing numbers
Given the consultant’s new housing capacity estimate of more than 140,000 with Code Next, please provide projected housing numbers by district and zoning classification. Please also provide: • calculations and assumptions used to derive these projected numbers • an explanation of how these assumptions and calculations may align or differ from those used in the 2011 zoning capacity study (under Method 2 using “Reasonable Limits”) which indicated that 224,530 additional units could be built under existing entitlements and mapped those units by neighborhood and neighborhood planning area • expected geographic distribution of the 3,790 new dwelling units estimated for T3N and T4N zones by neighborhood plan area (if within neighborhood plan area) or neighborhood • For each neighborhood or neighborhood plan area, indicate how many of the projected units can be expected to be achieved through: o demolition/complete redevelopment o subdivisions of existing lots o Code Next proposal for design sites per 23-4D-2060(C)(1)(a)
Pending  
3 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Community character photographs
Please provide a link to the community character photos, by district and, if possible, by neighborhood. Describe how were these used to guide mapping decisions and proposed zoning classifications.
Posted
The Community Character Manual can be viewed in its entirety here: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/planning/CodeNext/Community_Character_Manual/. The images are organized by neighborhood in the Character Manual in Chapter 6. The images, taken by community members through the CodeNEXT ‘Community Character in a Box’ program, were used to help staff better understand the existing character of neighborhoods. For example, many of the images helped staff to understand the relationships between buildings and the streets and each other, which made their way into many of the transect zones. The transect zones were applied to preserve the existing character of neighborhoods, since they are better equipped to assist with form controls than use-based zones.
Answered: 06/08/2017 04:26 PM
4 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Adherence to Neighborhood Plans
In multiple neighborhoods, properties currently zoned single family (SF3 as well as SF2) appear in the proposed maps as Transect 4, which has been described as a multifamily zoning category. Many of these properties fall within neighborhood plan areas, and the Council-adopted neighborhood plans for those areas indicate those properties as single family on their Future Land Use Maps. Imagine Austin, the policy directives to date, and information about Code Next all note that neighborhood plans (where they exist) will guide mapping decisions. If these T4 designations are not errors, please indicate why staff or consultants are proposing such significant up-zonings on these properties absent a policy directive that would support such a change in mapping criteria. In areas such as those described above, please indicate whether any lower zoning designations were considered for those properties; if so, what were those classifications, why did they change, and who made the decision?
Posted
When applying new zones to a property, the mapping team, which consists of staff and consultants, evaluated a variety of factors, including Imagine Austin, neighborhood plans (and associated FLUMs), existing zoning and land use, conditional overlays, and patterns in both the built form and street networks. The mapping team tried to find a best-fit zone to match the existing built form (height, setbacks, building size, etc), zoning entitlements, and policy direction. The potential corresponding T4 designations for SF-2 and SF-3 include T4N.DS (deep setback), T4N.IS (intermediate setback), and T4N.SS (shallow setback). Allowable building types in these zones include: • Small House Form: cottage house, small house, duplex (stacked and front-and-back) • Medium House Form: wide house, duplex (side-by-side), multiplex (medium) • Multiple House Form: cottage court • Accessory Building Form: accessory dwelling unit Many of these building forms are consistent with current SF-2 and SF-3 zoning. Where T4 was mapped there are often a variety of building types and larger lots present, which more closely correspond with the regulations for the multiplex and courtyard buildings.
Answered: 06/08/2017 04:15 PM
5 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Mapping process
Who developed the draft maps – city staff or consultants? If city staff played a role in developing draft maps, please indicate their division and describe their familiarity with existing neighborhood plans and zoning designations such as local and National Register historic districts. If the personnel varied in different geographical areas, please identify by district or geographical area.
Posted
The draft maps were a collaborative effort over a period of months between city staff and consultant team. City staff from the Planning and Zoning Department (Comprehensive Planning, Neighborhood Involvement and Implementation, Urban Design, and Current Planning Divisions) participated in various stages, depending on area of expertise, as did staff from the Development Services Department. Participating staff are very familiar with existing neighborhood plans and zoning- staff in the Comprehensive Planning Division are responsible for creating neighborhood plans, the Neighborhood Involvement and Implementation Division tracks the implementation of Neighborhood Plan goals, Urban Design develops and is involved in the implementation of small area plans (Transit-Oriented Development Plans, Corridor Plans, etc), and Current Planning staff are responsible for zoning and annexation cases.
Answered: 06/08/2017 04:16 PM
6 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Process for reviewing and incorporating code and map edits and revisions
What will be the process for determining which comments on the draft maps and draft code will be incorporated into the versions that get reviewed by the commissions? Will there be a map and code revision committee? If so, who will serve on it? Will the Citizens Advisory Group have a role in this process?
Posted
All comments submitted before June 7 (text), July 14 (affordability section), and July 7 (map) will be considered by staff for incorporation into the staff recommendation. The staff recommendation will be brought to the Planning Commission and Zoning and Platting Commission in September. All comments, both those submitted before the initial deadline and those submitted after, will be sent to the Planning Commission, the Zoning and Platting Commission, and City Council for their consideration. These bodies may choose to create revision committees; however, staff will not be creating a revision committee for the staff recommendation draft, as all comments submitted before the deadline will be considered by the code writers.
Answered: 06/08/2017 04:26 PM
7 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Public comment on Code Next text and maps
Given the short timeframe for comments and the large amount of new information to read and understand, how can members of the public provide comments after the June 7 (code text) /July 7 (map) deadlines? Will online commenting continue to be available? Will staff compile those additional comments for boards and commissions members? When will the density bonus section be complete and what will be the process for public comments? Throughout the comment period, can individuals and organizations submit documents that contain multiple comments rather than intersperse them throughout the online draft code? If so, how?
Posted
Both online comment tools will still be open after the initial deadlines of June 7 and July 7. All comments received after the initial deadlines will be compiled and sent to the Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, and the City Council for their consideration. The staff recommendation text and map will also be on the online comment sites (codenext.civicomment.org for the text and codenext.engagingplans.org for the map) once they are completed in August. This will allow the community to comment on the staff recommendation of the text and map, and may help guide Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, and City Council decisions in September and beyond. The density bonus section will be complete on June 16, and the text will be posted on codenext.civicomment.org as a separate document. The comment cutoff date for staff consideration on this section will be on July 14. Individuals and organizations can submit documents with comments to codenext@austintexas.gov, however, to ensure consistency, clarity, and transparency in the comment process, the CodeNEXT team encourages those individuals and organizations to also comment on the areas of the map or the lines of the code directly by using the online comment tools.
Answered: 06/08/2017 04:27 PM
8 Tovo 2017 05/25/2017 Follow up on Question #2 - demolitions
Of those new units expected to be achieved through demolition of existing housing and complete redevelopment (see Question #2), please indicate how many are projected in each of the following areas: o Homestead preservation districts (existing and contemplated) o Residential areas adjacent to neighborhood schools, esp. those identified by AISD as on the “target utilization plan” and in danger of closing due to under-enrollment o Geographic boundaries of the East Austin Historic Survey o National Register Historic Districts and in particular, the number of contributing properties o Local historic districts (established and in progress) and in particular, the number of contributing properties o Areas covered by other city-conducted historic surveys
Pending  
9 Tovo 2017 06/05/2017 Childcare Access
How does the proposed code impact where childcare facilities can be located throughout Austin?
Pending  
10 Tovo 2017 06/06/2017 NCCDs/PUDs/PDAs/TODs and Compatibility Standards
How will compatibility standards be triggered for those properties that will remain under the current code (approximately 24% of the city per staff) when the draft lists only Transect and Non-Transect zoning categories as triggering compatibility?
Pending  
11 Tovo 2017 06/07/2017 Residential Permit Parking Program
How, or will, CodeNEXT affect the Residential Permit Parking Program?
Pending  
12 Tovo 2017 06/12/2017 Single Family Compatibility Ordinance Requirements
Please provide modeling examples that compare the Single Family Compatibility Ordinance Requirements (ie. McMansion) under: (1) existing single family 3 regulations (2) Transect Zoning 3 Intermediate Setback / Transect Zoning 4 Intermediate Setback (3) non-transect residential zoning Low Density Residential (LDR) / Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Using either a 50' x 115' tract or a 60' x 100' tract for the example above (whichever is more typical citywide), please also indicate for each example: *maximum number of units allowed *total residential square footage *total Floor-to-Area ratio *required number of parking spaces *total allowable impervious cover Please indicate any other changes proposed under the new code; for example, the removal of side-wall articulation as a requirement.
Pending  
13 Tovo 2017 06/12/2017 Compatibility Modeling Scenarios
(1) Please model the following scenarios: Current code: Limited Office within 35’ of a residence, when that residence is across a 30’ street. Limited Retail within 35’ of a residence, when that residence is across a 30’ street. Proposed new code: T4MS within 35’ of a residence, when that residence is across a 30’ street from the T4MS zone. T5MS within 35’ of a residence, when that residence is across a 30’ street from the T5MS zone. For each scenario, please show the maximum building height for both the residential and the commercial structure. (2) Please provide information, or modeling, to illustrate how compatibility would work around alleys in transect zones. (3) Please provide details to help illustrate the difference in compatibility among transect zones, non-transect zones, and current code. (4) Which level of compatibility applies in areas where parcels have both transect and non-transect zoning?
Pending  
14 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Imagine Austin, Prescription Papers, and Draft Code & Map
The Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map identifies the centers and corridors where growth and density should be directed. We are not seeing a correlation between the Growth Concept Map and the CodeNEXT draft maps. 1. Will the next CodeNEXT map be in alignment with the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map to apply density along those corridors and in existing “transition” areas behind the corridors that respect neighborhood plans and preserve neighborhood core character?
Pending  
15 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
Certain neighborhoods (Central East Austin, South Austin around South 1st, portions of South Brentwood) were mapped with the more intense T4N residential Transect Zones that increase entitlements, density, and commercial uses more than in other neighborhoods. Also, the intention of the mapping is difficult to ascertain in terms of promoting certain housing types over others in the core of neighborhoods. 1. Partial planning efforts that target density and increase entitlements in some areas of town while not in others is inequitable, particularly when certain historic communities are vulnerable to displacement. Can staff explain why some neighborhoods received transect zoning with higher entitlements and density potential (T4N.SS vs. T3N.IS) than other neighborhoods in the urban core?
Pending  
16 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
2. How will staff ensure that future versions of the CodeNEXT map are better aligned with our adopted neighborhood plans (and their Future Land Use Maps) and follow our adopted comprehensive plan and Growth Concept Map?
Pending  
17 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
3. Can you explain the top story of buildings in T3 and T4? If the requirement says a max of two stories, is it two stories with the potential of an attic with dormers? Or just two stories? If it is actually 2 1/2, what are the provisions that regulate the half?
Pending  
18 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
4. Is the eave/parapet height difference deliberate for form/shape? What about contemporary designs with flat roofs?
Pending  
19 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
5. Is it possible to have a full 8-unit multiplex as well as an ADU on one parcel?
Pending  
20 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Mapping of Transects & General Questions
6. Regarding the "existing lot" provision on the T3 and T4 transects that reduces required lot widths to 25' -- does this apply to the disaggregation of lots? Say, if there is a 75' wide site made up of 3 aggregated 25' lots, can they be disaggregated and use the reduced width, reduced site area provision?
Pending  
21 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Transect Entitlements
The current Transect Zones are written with extra entitlements built in, like multiple units, commercial uses, and lower parking requirements. These extra entitlements have been "baked in" and are "by right," but could have been leveraged for community benefits. 1. Additional entitlements are proposed in the new draft map “by right” and were not leveraged to gain community benefits and promote Imagine Austin community priorities, such as SMART Housing units all over the city. For example, in "transition" areas where cottage, townhome, and condo “missing middle” housing types entitlements are proposed, those could have been leveraged for affordable housing units. In older neighborhoods like Rosedale, Clarksville, and Central East Austin, preservation programs such as Character Home Zoning Review (Vancouver, BC) which allows greater entitlements for more units on a parcel in exchange for preservation of the existing main structure could have been leveraged (along with financial assistance for qualified homeowners). Other programs could include entitlements in exchange for superior green infrastructure or on-site detention (no fee-in-lieu) in areas with local area flooding challenges like Brentwood, Walnut Creek, Rosedale, and several East and South Austin neighborhoods. Has staff considered a recalibration of the now “by right” reduced parking, increased commercial uses, and additional unit entitlements to leverage community benefits and a promotion of Imagine Austin priorities?
Pending  
22 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Neighborhood/Small Area Plans
The proposed map frequently does not align with many of the existing Neighborhood Plans and their Future Land Use Maps (FLUMs). Mapping the city with the Growth Concept Map in mind, along with the Neighborhood Plans and the FLUMs would provide the necessary context of each neighborhood, and provide the necessary guidance to achieve the goals and promote the priorities of Imagine Austin. Additionally, it remains unclear how the Neighborhood Planning effort will continue as part of the new code. 1. Can staff clarify how the mapping decisions were made?
Pending  
23 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Neighborhood Plan Overlay District (23-4D-7090)
Administrative staff commented online that neighborhood plans were included as overlay districts "in error." Staff reported online that due to some legal language issues, neighborhood plans would instead only be included as amendments to the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. 1. Is it possible to adjust the legal language to allow the Neighborhood Plans to remain as Overlay Districts in the new code?
Pending  
24 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Neighborhood/Small Area Planning Efforts
1. It is unclear how Neighborhood/Small Area Plan efforts will be continued in the draft code. There is language about the existing adopted Neighborhood Plans, but the process for adopting new ones is unclear. Is there a plan to clarify how these efforts will continue?
Pending  
25 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Infrastructure Improvements & Mobility
1. Has staff aligned the mapping along the corridors with the planned infrastructure improvements that are part of the mobility bonds?
Pending  
26 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Infrastructure Improvements & Mobility
2. Has staff collaborated with Capital Metro? In particular, has staff aligned the CodeNEXT corridor mapping with the transit authority’s 2025 plan?
Pending  
27 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Legal, Non-Complying parcels
1. The mapping designates some parcels with zoning categories in which they do not meet the minimum lot size requirements. What happens in the following cases: a. Fire, or other “acts of God” such a tornado or storm damage in which the home is destroyed, and a replacement of the home is needed? b. A property owners wants to pursue major renovations, additions, or redevelopment?
Pending  
28 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Minor Adjustments (23-2F-2030)
This section allows a 10% adjustment allowance, approved by the Director, for errors during construction for height, setbacks, and building coverage. 1. Can staff explain the criteria that the Director will use when judging whether errors are inadvertent or intentional?
Pending  
29 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Minor Adjustments (23-2F-2030)
This section allows a 10% adjustment allowance, approved by the Director, for errors during construction for height, setbacks, and building coverage. 2. Will the Director be responsible for determining the “intent” of the applicant while investigating the errors?
Pending  
30 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Several elements of PUD approval are not visible in the new code. 1. Where are the proposed Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements for PUD approval in the draft code?
Pending  
31 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Planned Unit Development (PUD)
2. Where is the requirement for a baseline determination in the draft code? Will this requirement be part of the Density Bonus chapter?
Pending  
32 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Planned Unit Development (PUD)
3. For clarity on approval process, the Environmental Commission should be included in 23-4D-6131(3)(c) as a review authority for Planned Unit Developments. Will staff include this body as a review authority in the next draft of the code?
Pending  
33 Pool 2017 06/12/2017 Planned Unit Development (PUD)
4. We are not finding a corresponding PUD regulation of Residential and Non-Residential uses from the old code (25-3-2, and 25-3-3) to the new code. Can staff help clarify where these regulations of uses are in the new code?
Pending  
34 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Minor Use Permits
Minor Use Permit approvals by the Director must meet the same criteria standards as Conditional Use Permits reviewed by the Planning Commission. It is unclear, however, what the appeals process would be for a Minor Use Permit. Can staff clarify what the appeals process would be for MUPs?
Pending  
35 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Minor Use Permits
The notation in the draft code (23-4B-1030) indicates that Legal staff were weighing in on the solution for an appeals process. Has that solution been found?
Pending  
36 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Parking Requirement Reductions
The Natural and Built Environment (P.30), the Household Affordability (P.34), and the Mobility (p.28) Code Prescription Papers all mention parking requirement reductions that would be context sensitive, and focused on areas where high capacity transit was available or nearby. Yet, parking reductions are included across all zoning categories and across all uses, even commercial uses within neighborhoods. 1. Is staff planning to review the reductions to ensure a context-driven staff recommendation, and leverage our available programs, such as the Residential Parking Program, as a trade-off for neighborhoods that are adjacent to commercial areas on major corridors?
Pending  
37 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Parking Requirement Reductions
2. The draft code includes a number of parking reductions (for instance, reductions for being located within 1/4 mile of a transit corridor, for preserving trees, for adding bicycle parking, etc.). It also specifies that a developer may only claim a maximum of 40 percent parking reduction. Does this 40 percent parking reduction cap include or not include the potential for paying fee in-lieu for parking spaces? In other words, can a developer claim the maximum 40 percent reduction and then pay fee in-lieu on top of that in order to lower their requirements even further?
Pending  
38 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Compatibility Standards Reductions and Triggers
Will staff clarify what compatibility standards apply between the following: • Transect properties; • Transect properties with step back provisions (with triggering properties); • Transect and Non-Transect properties. Here are some examples to review: • Hancock and Woodview (T4MS next to LMDR) • Kramer just east of Metric (LDR next to FI) • North Lamar Blvd and Wagon Trail (LDR next to SC-L)
Pending  
39 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Compatibility Standards Reductions and Triggers
1. Does staff plan to standardize compatibility for Non-Transect and Transect Zones, and clarify how they interact in terms of triggers?
Pending  
40 Pool 2017 06/13/2017 Compatibility Standards Reductions and Triggers
2. Will staff be considering a restoration of distance as a measure of height compatibility rather than simply adjacency? If the current compatibility distances need to be adjusted, that is a subject for public discussion.
Pending  
41 Tovo 2017 06/14/2017 Envision Tomorrow
On the different versions of the Envision Tomorrow analyses, the spreadsheet notes the number of new children, but for every zoning category, the column indicating the number of children LOST is blank. What are the numbers for children lost (or, alternatively, the net number of new children) in the T3 and T4 categories for each of the different spreadsheets that have been presented? The student generation rates on the “project information” tab were, I assume, the formulas used to calculate the estimated number of new children. The differing formulas assume that as the housing gets denser, those units will produce fewer children. Please correlate the categories here (fewer than 8 units/acre; 9-14 units/acre; and 15+ units/acre) to the proposed zoning categories contained within CodeNext.
Pending  
42 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Compatibility Standards Reductions and Triggers
All residential Transect Zones should trigger compatibility. Staff and the Opticos consultants indicated that they are considering having T4N residential properties trigger compatibility requirements, just as T3N properties do. Has staff made the decision on that issue yet, and will it be reflected in the next draft?
Pending  
43 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Compatibility Standards Reductions and Triggers
4. It is unclear how commercial properties with current code designations will interact in terms of compatibility when next to Transect and Non-Transect residential properties. Can staff clarify how this issue? Will this issue only come into play when properties with “legacy” zoning are redeveloped and then fall under Non-Transect or Transect Compatibility Standards?
Pending  
44 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Compatibility of Uses
Some T3N and T4N zones have commercial uses embedded inside neighborhoods that are incompatible with residential areas. Restaurants and bars, as well as medical office, are allowed in some of the areas "by right," or with a "Conditional Use Permit" through the Planning Commission, or in some cases just through a "Minor Use Permit" by administrative approval. 1. T3N-Open and T4N-Open are currently written to permit alcohol service with a CUP or MUP within neighborhoods. Can staff explain the rationale behind allowing the possibility of alcohol sale within neighborhoods?
Pending  
45 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Compatibility of Uses
2. The southern end of Joe Sayers Ave (south of North Loop Blvd) in South Brentwood has been mapped with T4N.IS-Open. This area is a combination of multi-family and single family residential. It is just south of North Loop which is proposed to be T4N-Open (or T4NC-Open). Can staff explain the rationale behind the choice of the “Open” category for this residential street?
Pending  
46 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Compatibility of Uses
3. Additionally, this proposed zoning of the southern end of Joe Sayers Ave is an example of where the mapping does not reflect the adopted Brentwood Highland Neighborhood Plan or its accompanying FLUM. Can staff explain why the neighborhood plan and the FLUM were not considered in this mapping choice on the southern end of Joe Sayers Ave?
Pending  
47 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Environmental Criteria / Landscape Buffers
Can staff explain why Landscape Buffers such as Foundation Buffer, intermittent Visual Obstruction Buffer, Semi-Opaque, Opaque Buffers (23-4E-4050, 4090, 4100, 4110) only apply in Non-Transect Zones?
Pending  
48 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
1. What is the purpose of the proposed Alternative Compliance provision?
Pending  
49 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
2. Is there a rationale behind allowing projects to “adequately achieve” the standards in the Environmental Criteria Manual rather than requiring that a project applying for an Alternative Compliance show an improvement upon, or is superior to, the standards in the manual?
Pending  
50 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
3. Is it possible for the Environmental Commission to review Alternative Compliance applications instead of allowing them to be administratively approved?
Pending  
51 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
4. Can staff explain how a decrease in some of the more community-oriented requirements such as open space, sidewalk widths, tree spacing, and play areas could balance out with equal community benefit in an Alternative Compliance application?
Pending  
52 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
5. Can staff provide some real world examples of how innovative design might outweigh the benefits of the community-oriented infrastructure such as the ones listed above?
Pending  
53 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Parks & Recreation / Open Space (23-2M-1 & 2)
1. What is the term in the new code for "greenbelts" that are not for daily public use, but rather for green infrastructure? Also, is such a greenbelt a land use, or a term?
Pending  
54 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Definition of
1. PARD endorses "Recreation, Active" as formal recreation and "Recreation, Passive" as informal recreation, and recommends that any type of park be allowed in every zone. Will these recommendations be included in the next draft code?
Pending  
55 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Civic Space, Open Space, and Community Open Space (23-2M-1 & 2)
The new code uses "Open" and "Civic" Space interchangeably, but are they the same thing? Is Open or Civic Space green and pervious? Also, are Open and Civic Space the same as Community Open Space? 1. Can staff clarity these various terms, and the types of uses, surfaces, and installations allowable on all?
Pending  
56 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Definition of “Park” (23-2M-1 & 2)
The new code defines "Park" as a mix of Town Lake park definitions and park types. PARD recommends eliminating all of the Town Lake corridor study park uses, and leaving those in the Waterfront Overlay because they only apply there. 1. Will PARD review these definitions and park types and determine the correct ones for the new code?
Pending  
57 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Preserve:
PARD recommends a definition and a category for "Preserve" or "Conservation Land" for those natural assets which are not open to the public, but are publicly owned. 1. Will PARD review this possible category and definition, and determine what will be included in the next draft code version?
Pending  
58 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Family-Friendly Play Area (23-4C-1070)
1. What is a "Family-Friendly Play Area" and what are the standards for it? Will PARD review this portion of the code and recommend standards for a "Family-Friendly Play Area" based on national best practices?
Pending  
59 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Civic Space Types (23-4C-2040)
This section doesn't align with PARD's Long Range Plan that specifies types; PARD requested removal of the requirement that these be in Transect Zones so that any park type could be in the Transect Zones; and it is unclear if the Civic Space requirement is in addition to the 5% Common Private Space requirement. 1. Can we get clarity on these issues, and have PARD determine what is included in the next draft of the code?
Pending  
60 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Private Frontage Types in Transect Zones, Supplementary Requirements for Cottages and Courtyard Buil
This section doesn't discuss how green or pervious this area has to be; it's not clear if the open space here is contributing to the green space. 1. Will PARD review and determine what is included for the next draft of the code on this issue?
Pending  
61 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Open Space Requirements by Zone (23-4D-5090)
It is unclear whether private common space can also be public common space and what amount of credit is given for the overall requirement. 1. Will PARD review this issue and determine what is included for the next draft of the code?
Pending  
62 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Open Space Requirements by Zone (23-4D-5090)
1. Can staff explain why residential Non-Transect Zones (from LDR to HDR) have NO open space requirement as written in Subchapter E for more than 10 residential units?
Pending  
63 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Open Space Requirements by Zone (23-4D-5090)
2. Will PARD review this issue and make recommendations for the next draft of the code?
Pending  
64 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Other Zones, OS Open Space (23-4D-6)
The allowed uses here are broad and have no set standards for park development. Also, PARD recommends set standards for such park types as "Pocket Parks" to provide clarity and predictable standards without the need for a Conditional Use site plan. 1. Will PARD review this section and make recommendations for the next draft of the code?
Pending