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?
Posted
Staff and Consultants are in the process of updating our parcel layer and redevelopment assumptions based on a number of factors and pieces of feedback received from Council, PC/ZAP, and members of the Austin community. These updates will influence the number and location of parcels assumed to redevelop in the model. The model will be recalibrated and updated with the roll-out of Draft 3.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:13 PM
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)
Posted
In response to each bullet: 1. Calculations and assumptions used to derive housing capacity projections were explained during the 9/19 City Council Work Session Presentation by Frego and Associates: http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/2017_0920_AustinLDC_CC_Pres_Part2of2.pdf 2. The current zoning capacity study uses a consistent method of analysis which originates from the Draft 2 zoning districts. 3. This question is no longer applicable because transect zones are not in Draft 2. 4. While the code allows or enables property owners to increase the number of units on their properties, the actual decision to increase the number of units on a property is driven by the market and determined by the property owner. Consultants and staff can provide capacity or an area's "potential" for additional units, but can't project if a property owner will choose to exercise their property rights.
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:54 AM
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
Posted
Staff and Consultants are in the process of updating our parcel layer and redevelopment assumptions based on a number of factors and pieces of feedback received from Council, PC/ZAP, and members of the Austin community. These updates will influence the number and location of parcels assumed to redevelop in the model. The model will be recalibrated and updated to include a capacity analysis with the roll-out of Draft 3. Consultants and staff can provide capacity or an area's "potential" for additional units, but can't project if a property owner will choose to exercise their property rights.
Answered: 11/07/2017 09:30 AM
9 Tovo 2017 06/05/2017 Childcare Access
How does the proposed code impact where childcare facilities can be located throughout Austin?
Posted
In today's code, childcare services for 6 children or fewer are allowed in SF-3 zones and higher intensity zones. In Draft 2 of the proposed code, childcare services for 7 children or less are permitted in all residential house scale zones except for LA. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for daycare centers serving from 7 up to 20 children except for R2B, R2C, R3B, R3C, and R4C where a Minor Use Permit (MUP) is required. Commercial size childcare facilities are not allowed in most zones, yet some would be permitted with a CUP.
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:57 AM
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?
Posted
Staff recognizes that there is a difference between how compatibility standards are applied under current code and the draft code. Staff will be addressing this difference in Draft 3.
Answered: 10/23/2017 10:13 AM
11 Tovo 2017 06/07/2017 Residential Permit Parking Program
How, or will, CodeNEXT affect the Residential Permit Parking Program?
Posted
CodeNEXT does not propose any changes to the Residential Permit Parking Program (RPP); RPP is managed outside of the Land Development Code. We have also contacted the Austin Transportation Department, who administers the Residential Permit Parking Program, and they are not aware of any amendment to end the program.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:30 PM
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.
Posted
SF-3 under the Residential Design and Compatibility Standards as compared to R3C is as follows: Max. number of units: SF-3 allows 2 units; R3C allows 3 units on a 5000 sf lot and 6 units on a 10,000 sf lot. Total residential square footage: Both SF-3 and R3C allow for 0.4 FAR or 2300 sf, whichever is greater. Required number of parking spaces: SF-3 required 2 spaces per unit with some exceptions for ADUs; R3C requires one parking space per unit. Total allowable impervious cover: Both SF-3 and R3C have an impervious cover maximum of 45%. Building height: Both SF-3 and R3C have a 32 foot maximum. Setback planes: Setback planes have been removed and a 22' eave/parapet height maximum has been implemented. Additional height restrictions apply 80' beyond the front property line. Side wall articulation: R3C carries forward the side wall articulation standards from Residential Design and Compatibility Standards.
Answered: 10/20/2017 12:06 PM
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?
Posted
Since Transect Zones no longer apply, City staff are working with the consultant team on modeling the new zones based on CodeNEXT Draft 2.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:15 PM
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?
Posted
The application of new zones in the CodeNEXT draft map was the result of an examination of several factors, including the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map, existing zoning, FLUMs (where applicable), existing land use, existing built form, and connectivity. Many of the highest intensity zones are applied along corridors, with transitions behind. We will continue to examine the map for inconsistencies and fix errors where applicable.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:30 PM
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?
Posted
The application of new zones in the CodeNEXT draft map was the result of an examination of several factors, including the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map, existing zoning, FLUMs (where applicable), existing land use, existing built form, and connectivity. Areas with higher unit count patterns (ex: primarily three or four units per parcel) or larger lots may have received a variation of T4N, while those with lower existing unit count patterns (ex: predominantly 1-2 units per parcel) or smaller lots may have received a variation of T3.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:31 PM
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?
Posted
The application of new zones in the CodeNEXT draft map was the result of an examination of several factors, including the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map, existing zoning, FLUMs (where applicable), existing land use, existing built form, and connectivity. We will continue to examine the map for inconsistencies with FLUMs and the Growth Concept Map and fix errors where applicable.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:31 PM
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?
Posted
In the R3 and R4 zones (similar to T3 and T4 in draft 1), the maximum of two stories has been removed. If a building is able to meet the height requirements of the zoning code and all requirements of the building code a half story can be built under a sloped roof. The definition of a "half story" is as follows: A conditioned space that rests primarily underneath the slope of the roof. A half-story shall be considered a story when its top wall plates, on at least two opposite exterior walls, are four feet or more above the floor of such story.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:17 PM
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?
Posted
Yes, the eave/parapet height is set in order to limit excessively tall form/shape. Flat roofs are allowed, and parapets were deliberately included with flat roofs in mind.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:32 PM
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?
Posted
So long as it is possible to provide adequate parking without exceeding impervious cover limitations and to maintain 10' of separation between buildings, it is possible to have an 8-unit multiplex and ADU on the same parcel.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:32 PM
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?
Posted
The existing lot provision only applies to lots as they currently exist. If a lot is 75' wide at the time of the code adoption, then it does not satisfy the criterion of existing as three 25' lots at the time of the code adoption.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:33 PM
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?
Posted
The proposed Citywide Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program describes the process for capturing community benefits through density bonuses. The proposed changes include changes to the draft zoning code text for each applicable zone so that a maximum base entitlement and maximum bonus entitlement is defined. Developers would only be able to use the bonus entitlements if they also addressed affordable housing. Currently, only the Downtown Density Bonus Program leverages additional community benefits beyond affordable housing units.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:33 PM
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?
Posted
The application of new zones in the CodeNEXT draft map was the result of an examination of several factors, including the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map, existing zoning, FLUMs (where applicable), existing land use, existing built form, and connectivity. Where possible, a best-fit new zone was applied to a particular place. Where new zoning could not account for highly specific circumstances, such as in PUDs, NCCDs, and some conditional overlays, existing zoning was carried forward.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:20 PM
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?
Posted
Neighborhood Plans will remain as overlay districts.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:34 PM
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?
Posted
Future planning efforts will continue, but they will be different from the existing Neighborhood Planning efforts. Based on the audit on neighborhood planning and the Zucker Report, the Planning and Zoning Department is working both on a new way to select future planning areas and a new type of plan(s) or planning services to deliver.
Answered: 08/17/2017 11:09 AM
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?
Posted
Planning and Zoning Department staff are working with Mobility Bond Program staff to identify opportunities for collaboration as the Corridor Construction Program is developed.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:35 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT draft map is based on Council adopted policy; Capital Metro's Connections 2025 has not been adopted by Council. However, other tools such as the Transit Oriented Priority Tool developed by Capital Metro were considered.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:35 PM
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?
Posted
A property owner may replace or remodel and nonconforming structure, subject to certain restrictions. 23-2G-1070 details replacement and remodel of a nonconforming structure.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:22 PM
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?
Posted
Section 23-2F-2030 (Minor Adjustments): The 10% adjustment is only granted based on field inspection when it is determined that an error in construction occurred and the construction in/on the ground does not match what was approved on the plan. At this time no specific crietria have been determined, according to 23-2F-2030-(B)(3) Criteria for Approval; the responsible director may only approve an adjustment under this section if the adjustment is the minimum amount necessary to address errors made inadvertently, and in good faith, due to unforeseen site conditions or other circumstances beyond the permittee’s control.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:22 PM
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?
Posted
While it is the field inspector's responsibility to report the deviations from the building permit or site plan that occurred during the construction phase, it will be up to the applicable director to determine whether each adjustment is merited.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:29 PM
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?
Posted
Tier 1 requirements can be found in 23-4D-8120(D)(3). Tier 2 requirements have been condensed into 23-4D-8120(D)(3)(l).
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:24 PM
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?
Posted
When the Citywide Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program is incorporated into the code text, the description of each zone will clearly state the base entitlements allowed on a site and the bonus that can be achieved if the development addresses affordable housing. The draft code text released in January does not define the values for these base and bonus entitlements.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:36 PM
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?
Posted
Yes, staff will include the Environmental Commission in review of all PUDs since that is current practice.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:27 PM
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?
Posted
Chapter 25-3 (Traditional Neighborhood District) has been replaced by the new transect zone standards in Division 23-4D-2 (Transect Zones) and they are, therefore, intentionally not included in the PUD regulations.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:36 PM
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?
Posted
Minor Use Permits will be appealed to the Planning Commission.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:36 PM
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?
Posted
Minor Use Permits will be appealed to the Planning Commission.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:37 PM
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?
Posted
Minimum parking has generally been reduced or is staying the same for most uses, but context, such as proximity to transit corridors, is still taken into account for parking reductions (23-4D-3060) and reductions may be granted for benefits such as bike share, tree preservation, and affordable housing (23-3E-5010).
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:24 PM
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?
Posted
In Draft 2 of CodeNEXT, the 40% parking reduction cap does not include fee-in-lieu. Staff is working on revisions to the parking adjustments section that streamline the process for parking reductions below 40%, making them part of a required or voluntary Transportation Demand Management Plan (for which fee in lieu could be one of many options available to adjust parking).
Answered: 11/09/2017 12:14 PM
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)
Posted
Compatibility standards are included in the zone pages. If a zone has compatibility standards, you will find them written there.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:37 PM
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?
Posted
Compatibility provisions have been standardized across zones in the new zoning spectrum (Draft 2).
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:30 PM
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.
Posted
No, the distance measurement has been replaced by adjacency in order to simplify the regulatory process. Adjacency is the most relevant factor for producing compatible urban form.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:38 PM
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.
Posted
New data from AISD planning staff is currently being incorporated into the recalibrated model of Envision Tomorrow. A more succient estimate of school aged children within each AISD high school catchment area will be provided as it correlates to the Draft 3 zones once the next draft is released.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:26 PM
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?
Posted
Compatibility is incorporated into the zone standards in the form of stepbacks when adjacent to particular zones. This includes both T3 and T4.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:38 PM
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?
Posted
Transect zones have been removed from Draft 2 and will not be in Draft 3. Compatibility standards have been incorporated into each zone in Draft 2 and this will continue in Draft 3. Mixed-use and Main Street zones under Draft 2 have compatibility setbacks, height step-backs, and required vegetative buffers within 30 feet from the triggering property line. Compatibility standards within each zone will apply regardless of "legacy" zones. If there are properties abutting F25 properties, compatibility standards will continue to apply.
Answered: 11/07/2017 11:02 AM
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?
Posted
The open sub-zones have been applied to properties currently entitled with office and/or commercial uses. Medical Services are limited by size in these open zones. A CUP is required for alcohol sales as well as outside seating and late night hours for restaurants. These additional processes are put into place to allow for review of the appropriateness of the use based on the location of the property in relation to other uses.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:39 PM
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?
Posted
The application of the Open Sub-zone in this area was indeed an error. The "-O" will be removed in the next map update.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:39 PM
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?
Posted
T4N.IS allows for single family and small-scale multi family, which follows the FLUM designation for this area. The application of the Open Sub-zone was applied in error in this area and will be removed in in the next map update.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:39 PM
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?
Posted
This language was included in Draft 1. In Draft 2, the proper vegetative buffer is indicated in each Zone.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:33 PM
48 Pool 2017 06/15/2017 Alternative Compliance (23-4E-4020)
1. What is the purpose of the proposed Alternative Compliance provision?
Posted
In 1982, Council passed Ordinance No. 820408-E. The Environmental Board requested to avoid hearing landscape variances because they are not landscape architects. The alternative compliance point system is designed to provide superior landscape coverage and is analyzed by staff landscape architects. The Code is written so that Alternative Compliance is not an option determined solely by the Applicant, but rather in order to protect existing trees.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:37 PM
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?
Posted
This language is from the original 1982 Ordinance (Ordinance No. 820408-E) - the Environmental Criteria Manual 2.5.0 clearly quantifies how to achieve the intent of the landscape requirements through a point system of landscape element equivalence tables.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:40 PM
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?
Posted
In 1982, Council passed Ordinance No. 820408-E. The Environmental Board requested to avoid hearing landscape variances because they are not landscape architects. The alternative compliance point system of Environmental Criteria Manual 2.5.0 is designed to quantify superior landscape coverage and is analyzed by staff landscape architects. The Code is written so that Alternative Compliance is not an option determined solely by the Applicant, but rather in order to protect existing trees.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:42 PM
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?
Posted
This is not a commercial landscape code issue. 23-4E-4020 Alternative Compliance refers to landscape compliance, which is plants and trees. The Alternative Equivalent Compliance for Subchapter E formerly addressed this topic.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:44 PM
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?
Posted
This is not a commercial landscape code issue. 23-4E-4020 Alternative Compliance refers to landscape compliance, which is plants and trees. The Alternative Equivelent Compliance for Subchapter E formerly addressed this topic.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:46 PM
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?
Posted
Greenbelt and Linear Park are both terms in Division 23-4C-2 (Civic Open Space). These are neither land uses nor terms; they are civic open space types. They would likely be zoned as Parks, and their use would be Recreation.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:40 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD to incorporate their recommendations into the next draft, including the change in terminology to reflect "active" and "passive" recreation. The team is also working with PARD to coordinate on the types of parks vs. types of civic spaces allowed in the zones.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:40 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD to resolve any overlap in terms and land uses to make it clearer to the user which types of park/open/civic spaces are allowed in each zone, and to make a clear distinction in the types of activities allowed in each.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:41 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD to resolve any concerns related to terms and uses.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:41 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team has been working with PARD on all park and open space regulations. PARD staff recommendations will be incorporated into the next draft. The CodeNEXT team will provide materials to PARD for review prior to release of the next draft to ensure it meets PARD requirements.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:41 PM
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?
Posted
See Section 23-4C-2160. Family-Friendly Play Area is a small park in an urban setting allowing for recreational use by near-by families, and allows playscapes. The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD on civic space standards.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:42 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD on all park and open space regulations with their input and recommendations incorporated into the next draft.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:42 PM
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?
Posted
Pervious cover requirements are set by zone. These supplementary requirements are additional regulations that apply to the form of these building types wherever they occur.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:43 PM
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?
Posted
The intent is to allow Common Open Space to also double as civic space if civic space is required (sites 4 acres or larger). If the applicant dedicates parkland or provides a parkland easement, common, civic or a combination of those can double as parkland dedication. In other words, applicants can layer the requirements if they agree to the spaces being publicly accessible and design them that way. See 23-4C-1030 (B) and 23-4C-1040 (B). Staff will work to clarify this language in Draft 3. Personal Open space required cannot count as common or civic space due to there not being any notes that say they can double.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:18 PM
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?
Posted
See Section 23-4E-6240 Multi-Family. This section provides open space requirements for all multi-family projects.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:43 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD on all park and open space regulations with their input and recommendations incorporated into the next draft.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:44 PM
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?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is working with PARD on all park and open space regulations with their input and recommendations incorporated into the next draft.
Answered: 07/24/2017 03:45 PM
65 Pool 2017 06/21/2017 Permitted Uses
Could you clarify if and how the following uses exist in the current code, so we can compare the zoning uses? a) Rowhouse: medium b) Rowhouse: large c) Low-rise d) Mid-rise e) High-rise/tower f) Commercial services: outside storage g) Commercial services: incidental outside storage h) Medical services i) Meeting facility j) Restaurant (how does the current general and limited restaurant uses compare to the 6 new designations) k) General retail with outside storage <2,000 sf l) General retail with outside storage >2,000 sf
Posted
a) No equivalent in the current code; listed as a building type in current code. As a use, it would fall under "multi-family" or a similar designation. b) No equivalent in the current code; listed as a building type in current code. As a use, it would fall under "multi-family" or a similar designation. c) No equivalent in the current code; listed as a building type in current code. As a use, it would fall under "multi-family" or a similar designation. d) No equivalent in the current code; listed as a building type in current code. As a use, it would fall under "multi-family" or a similar designation. e) No equivalent in the current code; listed as a building type in current code. As a use, it would fall under "multi-family" or a similar designation. f) Commercial services: no outside storage included but is not limited to former land uses: laundry services, and printing and publishing. g) Commercial services: w/ incidental outside storage includes but is not limited to former land uses: building maintenance services, exterminating services, construction sales and services. h) Medical Services includes but is not limited to former land uses: counseling services, guidance services, medical offices > 5000 sf and medical offices <= 5000 sf. i) Meeting facility includes but is not limited to former land uses: club or lodge. j) Restaurant w/o alcohol sales equates to Restaurant (limited). Restaurant w/ alcohol sales equates to Restaurant (general). The other elements added to restaurant uses are new (outside seating, drive through, late night operation). k)/l) General retail w/ outside storage includes but is not limited to former land uses: plant nursery. The size of outside storage is not regulated in current code. LWC: LWC agrees with the above response. It is important to note that a) through e) (Rowhouse: medium/Rowhouse: large/Low-rise/Mid-rise/High-rise/tower) are not uses – they are building types. This is why they are not in the current code. As a use they would fall under “multi-family” or a similar designation in the current code.
Answered: 11/01/2017 12:28 PM
66 Pool 2017 06/21/2017 Permitted Uses
There are question marks in the code for some uses- for example, “restaurant with alcohol sales” in T5U. What is the timeline for providing these?
Posted
The "?" in Draft 1 was an error. The land use tables have been updated for the new zoning spectrum in Draft 2.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:50 PM
67 Pool 2017 06/22/2017 Density Bonus
Why are there lower affordable housing percentage requirements for “Outer” Austin (5% ownership, 10% rental) than for “Inner” Austin (10% ownership, 20% rental). Is it possible to use the Growth Concept Map to help define the bonus density requirement areas?
Posted
The requirements vary because in "outer" Austin, a density bonus may have less value than in "inner" Austin. A bonus may serve a higher value in "inner" Austin as the cost of living is more expensive and the area provides better access to transit, jobs, and other amenities. Outer Austin areas may already allow for higher affordability.
Answered: 11/01/2017 03:08 PM
68 Pool 2017 06/22/2017 Density Bonus
Why is the biggest increase in affordable housing requirements in the T4 category? The other categories only call for the usual 5% of ownership and 10% of rental units? Why not include T5 Zones for the larger 10% and 20% requirement?
Posted
The Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) has been updated for the new spectrum of zones (Draft 2) and allows for a bonus to be achieved in varying combinations of units, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and height.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:53 PM
69 Pool 2017 06/22/2017 Density Bonus
Why are certain zones like T3MS, T4MS and Highway Commercial not included, and NC, LC, GC, are not included unless they have an “Open” Sub-Zone attached. The “Open” in commercial areas means residential is allowed, but wouldn’t it be better to collect a fee in lieu or get off-site units in those cases where there won’t be any residential on site?
Posted
"Open" zones no longer apply in Draft 2. The new zones identified in Draft 2 address the issue of mixed uses and include zones that allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses where today only commercial uses were allowed.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:55 PM
70 Pool 2017 06/22/2017 Density Bonus
Within the density bonus proposal, under the proposed base entitlements for T5 Urban and T5MS, the maximum height is 85’ ft, but the maximum stories is only 4. Is this an error? If the maximum stories is 4, doesn’t that mean the maximum height should be under 60’ ft? The same question applies for the other T5 zones. (3 stories max, but height max is 65’ ft – which would fit 5-6 stories.)
Posted
Transect zones have been replaced by a new spectrum of zoning (Draft 2) that clarifies the entitlements available in the zone with and without a bonus through the Affordable Housing Bonus Program. The new zones also address height by district and provide a reference to a height dimension to the top of eve and overall height. Staff is working on improvements to the way height is measured based on input received.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:58 PM
71 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Building Compadtibility
What other tools were considered for management of scale/massing?
Posted
The McMansion ordinance uses floor area ratio (FAR) and height to regulate scale. In Draft 1, form-based zones approached regulation through building envelopes rather than FAR. Another option considered was measuring identifiable elements of a building’s mass, such as the main structure and building extensions or additions (also known as “wings” such as “east wing” or “west wing” of a building). Rather than being overly prescriptive, we chose to Draft 2 regulates building scale and mass in the residential (R) zones using FAR, impervious cover, setbacks, and building coverage. Height is regulated by floors overall calculation of eave/parapet height. Additional form controls apply to Main Street (MS) zones and may be applicable to certain uses (such as cottage courts and accessory dwelling units). For Draft 3, staff and consultants are working on sample 3-D modeling by zone to show how concerns about scale and massing work in each zone.
Answered: 11/01/2017 03:09 PM
72 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 CodeNEXT Review Process
When can we get a full-screen CodeNEXT map viewer?
Posted
The CodeNEXT map comparison tool does not allow for full-screen viewing, however, high-resolution PDFs of the draft maps are available on the CodeNEXT website. Additionally, the draft map GIS layer is available for download on the CodeNEXT map tool page.
Answered: 07/26/2017 04:59 PM
73 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Neighborhood Plan Overlay Zone
What does the last paragraph of 23-4D-7090 really mean with regard to existing NP's? Is there a real world example of how a permitted use restriction would work with the code/look on a map?
Posted
Copied from CiviComment: "From CodeNEXT Staff - Correction: 'Section 23-4D-7090, Neighborhood Plan Overlay, is being deleted from the draft Land Development Code. The provisions of this section were included in error. The intent of the draft language (to clarify that adopted Neighborhood Plans and their associated future land use maps will continue to govern land use decision-making) is being met through other provisions of the City's policy framework and the draft land development code. In particular, adopted neighborhood plans will continue to exist as formal elements of the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, and many, if not all, of the discretionary processes described in the draft code require consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including Neighborhood Plans.' " The NP Overlay will remain, however it will be simplified in response to the issues identified by City staff.
Answered: 10/06/2017 09:22 AM
74 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Site Design
Is there a limit to how many Design Sites you can create on a given piece of land?
Posted
Theoretically there is no limit to the number of design sites you can create on a given parcel. However, development is constrained by minimum lot sizes within different zones, so practically the number of design sites is limited by the size of your parcel. So long as the parcel's partitioned design sites each accommodate the building and lot requirements in the parcel's zone, the partitioning fulfills the zoning regulations. This will be clarified in Draft 3.
Answered: 10/06/2017 09:26 AM
75 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Site Design
Can the inverse of a Design Site be accomplished combining multiple lots without re-subdividing?
Posted
The Design Site concept has been removed from Draft 2. Under current code (Title 25) and draft code, lots may be combined to form a site for a development, without having to re-plat.
Answered: 10/20/2017 01:59 PM
76 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Site Plan
Will builders of more than 3 units (Rowhouse, Multiplex, etc.) have to submit real Site Plans and comply with Detention/Water Quality regulations?
Posted
In Draft 2, The DSD Director may waive site plan requirements for residential application of 3-9 units located within an urban watershed if they are contained on a maximum of 2 buildings on one lot or up to 6 buildings on a cottage court lot. The Residential Heavy process will be further articulated in Draft 3. Staff is currently working on the mechanics of the process to make it easier for a property owner to consider the option for more than 3 units when the site development standards allow for such development.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:01 PM
77 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Lot Size
The LDR and LMDR zones do not have minimum lot widths. Are you concerned that this will incentivize demolition of existing housing or create additional conflicts with deed restrictions in existing neighborhoods?
Posted
The CodeNEXT team is evaluating standards across all zones and will be proposing updated site development regulations that will consider lot widths consistent with development patterns.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:00 PM
78 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Nonconforming Houses
Have you looked at the number of homes that would be made nonconforming in terms of Building Envelope in central Austin neighborhoods? We see few houses, even those from the '30s and '40s, that would comply. We also have a similar concern with combined minimum side setback, to a lesser extent. Please share what you know about the likelihood of nonconformity with respect to Envelope and minimum side setback in central Austin.
Posted
Some existing buildings will be nonconforming, but the mapping process should minimize those nonconformities by (a) informing revisions to the form-based standards where nonconformities represent a pattern not yet accounted for; and (b) mapping appropriately to what is on the ground balanced against the forward-looking vision developed through Imagine Austin, Neighborhood Plans, and other community planning tools. The second draft will reflect updates to building and lot standards that will reduce the nonconformities from the first draft. Also, note that not all existing patterns should be emulated in future development. Oversized building envelopes will be outliers, rather than being accommodated by the code, so that the code performs its function of regulating the desired form.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:00 PM
79 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Building Envelopes
How will additions to existing structure work with Building Envelopes? Of particular concern is the 4' offset from the back corner of a house.
Posted
Building envelopes have largely been deleted or simplified for Draft 2 of the code. Building articulation requirements still exist for some zones, but not specifically for additions, as in Draft 1.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:04 PM
80 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Height Limits
Would a Barrelvault or Gambrel roof defeat the Eave height limits?
Posted
Gambrel and barrel roof types are ways to gain additional interior space. The intent of the eave height is to keep one visual register at the desired story level. Developers will find ways to maximize space within the requirements, but the eave height (as well as overall height) will still serve as a useful check on just how tall the building can grow.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:00 PM
81 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Parking Setbacks
Do parking setbacks apply to surface parking or just structures?
Posted
Parking setbacks apply for both surface parking and structured parking.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:06 PM
82 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Building Form
How will 1 story at 80' rule work with existing structures? In D10, many neighbors are concerned because their homes straddle that 80' line with a two story structure.
Posted
Homes that exist as described may become nonconforming. This means that the use and structure are allowed to persist in perpetuity, with modifications allowed, subject to 23-2G: Nonconformity.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:07 PM
83 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 CodeNEXT Review Process
Is CodeComment searchable by username?
Posted
Individual username searches are not a functionality of CiviComment.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:01 PM
84 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Accessory Dwelling Units
Please share the perspective from staff and our consultants regarding the possibility of reducing the size of ADUs or incentivizing smaller ADUs.
Posted
The maximum allowable size for ADUs is a council-approved decision from 2015. If council gives direction to reduce the size requirements of ADUs, staff will incorporate those changes into the code. CodeNEXT seeks to offer a variety of building types that are compatible in scale and proportion to surrounding development while maintaining neighborhood character.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:01 PM
85 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Building Articulation
Does articulation apply to one story buildings in NonTransect zones?
Posted
With the newly proposed zoning districts, transect and non-transect zones will no longer remain. Form standards across all zones will be facilitated through the use of sub-zones. Building articulation by sub-zone will be considered citywide through the sub-zone application process. Therefore, form controls will remain.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:04 PM
86 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Bar Entitlements
Please explain the rationale for what appears to be a dramatic reduction in the process for gaining bar entitlements.
Posted
Except for regional center zones (CC, UC, DC), bars and nightclubs require a certain level of discretionary approval, in the form of a minor use permit or conditional use permit. These quasi judicial approval methods can be found in sections 23-4B- 1020 (Conditional Use Permit) and 23-4B-1030 (Minor Use Permit). A table explaining who determines the approval and who can appeal is found in Table 23-2A-1030(A).
Answered: 11/01/2017 03:07 PM
87 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Accessory Dwelling Units
Can an ADU be placed in front of the main house or duplex?
Posted
Yes, subject to spacing requirements (see 23-4E-6030).
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:10 PM
88 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Accessory Dwelling Units
Can you do an ADU behind a duplex in LMDR?
Posted
You can have an ADU behind a Two-Family Residential Use. A Two-Family Residential use allows for a duplex.
Answered: 10/06/2017 09:29 AM
89 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Parking Requirements
With respect to commercial parking, can <2,500 s.f. uses be "stacked" to exempt a larger building with multiple uses?
Posted
No. Parking requirements are evaluated at time of site plan, at which time the entire building is considered.
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:12 PM
90 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Unzoned Land
Is staff willing to work with citizens and council members to zone the unzoned land as a part of the CodeNEXT process?
Posted
Staff is not suggesting to zone “unzoned” property at this time. Within the City of Austin several properties are “unzoned” and owned by the state or federal government. New code language that addresses “unzoned” property has been added to Draft 2. This new language is found in Section 23-4B-3040 (B)(E) and states any “….state unzoned state or federally land within the City which is transferred to private interest shall assume an interim classification in compliance with the (Annexed Property) subsection.”
Answered: 10/20/2017 03:12 PM
91 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 CodeNEXT Review Process
How is the team tracking changes to the maps?
Posted
The team is using GIS as a function to maintain layers as they get updated. The data is stored before each update so we can always go back and see when changes were made.
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:04 PM
92 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Accessory Uses
Section 23-4E-6040 references "Residential Convenience Service", what is that?
Posted
"[The following are allowed as an accessory use to a principal residential use:] A residential convenience service if: (i) The principal use is a multi-family use or a mobile home park use; (ii) It is operated as an integral part of the principal use; (iii) Is not identifiable from outside the site; and (iv) Is intended to be patronized solely by the residents of the principal use."
Answered: 07/26/2017 05:04 PM
93 Alter 2017 07/18/2017 Accessory Dwelling Units
Please explain the levers or tools we have to incentivize ADUs and what direction we need to move them if we wanted more. This is an area that seems to need calibration, especially with regard to size, 20' rear setbacks etc.
Posted
Ways to incentivize ADUs are being explored for Draft 3. In Draft 2 an ADU is allowed additional height when the primary building is preserved (see Section E "Height" in zones where ADUs are allowed).
Answered: 10/20/2017 02:16 PM
94 Tovo 2017 08/24/2017 Comments for zoning classification entitlements
It is my understanding that staff recorded comments for each individual tract for which they proposed a zoning classification with entitlements that vary from existing zoning. Please provide a link or spreadsheet or some other means of viewing those individual comments and organize by city council district.
Posted
The following dataset is separated by council district and contains each zoned parcel identified with an ID number. This ID number is tied only to our GIS data and not to the layer we provided on the website or to any specific address. For each ID there is Current Zoning, Draft 1 zoning, Draft 1 May Update zoning, and Draft 2 zoning. Columns F thru L contain each comment field that has been created since the process began. Most of the comments before the release of Draft 1 are tied to staff and management review of Interim and Split zoning situations. The comments in Columns F thru G pertain to column C. The comments in column I pertain to columns D and E. Columns J thru L solely pertain to updates for Draft 2 in Column E. Not every ID will have a comment as we really only made comments when making changes between drafts. Hyperlink to dataset: https://data.austintexas.gov/City-Government/Zone-Updates-And-Staff-Comments-Per-Council-Distri/gjn9-q2fv/data
Answered: 12/12/2017 10:21 AM
95 Houston 2017 09/26/2017 Transit mapping/ developments within a 1/4 mile of transit
Council Member Houston had some questions that she hopes we can all consider before the discussion on Wednesday: What data was used to determine which new housing units will be a distance of ¼ of a mile or less from transit? Do those nodes which you have identified directly connect to current employers? If so which ones? What data did you use to determine that there would be bus stops within a ¼ of a mile from existing employment? Like Applied Materials, Samsung, ABC Pest Control, Brown Distribution, Balcones Recycling? Where are the greenfield developments and where are the infill/ redevelopment or existing structures in your modeling? With whom have you worked with at Capital Metro to come to these conclusions?
Posted
What data was used to determine which new housing units will be a distance of ¼ of a mile or less from transit? This comes from the Envision Tomorrow housing capacity estimates, and looks specifically at new capacity within a ¼ mile radius of existing and future transit lines. For clarity, the transit data came directly from CapMetro, and their 2025 future planned transit. While this analysis would typically be performed by looking within a radius to transit stops, CapMetro does not have future transit stop data they were comfortable using in this analysis (nothing final or confirmed), and therefore the radius was applied to transit lines themselves. Please see map #1 in the attached for clarification on the geography of this buffer within District 1. Do those nodes which you have identified directly connect to current employers? If so which ones? What data did you use to determine that there would be bus stops within a ¼ of a mile from existing employment? Like Applied Materials, Samsung, ABC Pest Control, Brown Distribution, Balcones Recycling? Similar to above, the employment numbers come from Envision Tomorrow employment capacity estimates that are within a ¼ mile radius of transit lines. In that regard, this does not directly connect to current employers, or projected employment change for any specific businesses. Both the housing and employment estimates are based on building, or development types, that correlate with the zoning on a specific parcel. Meaning, our analysis looked at what could feasibly be built under CodeNEXT (and current code), with each assigned a certain number of jobs or housing units that would be a part of a specific type of development. Where are the greenfield developments and where are the infill/ redevelopment or existing structures in your modeling? Please see map #2 which shows all the vacant land (dark brown), as well as the redeveloped land (green and red) included in our model. Put all together, this land is what we’ve referred to as “Buildable Lands”. To see how this translates to the zoning map, please see map #3 which shows the zoning applied to the Buildable Lands. With whom have you worked with at Capital Metro to come to these conclusions? Other than the data we requested and received from CapMetro, the analysis was done completely inhouse at Fregonese Associates.
Answered: 10/06/2017 09:32 AM
96 Adler 2018 10/11/2017 Summary of Code Revisions
Please provide a summary of the legal and administrative revisions to the Code, especially regarding Chapters 23-1 (Introduction), 23-2 (Administrative Procedures), 23-5 (Subdivision).
Posted
Please see attached document for the legal and administrative overview. This document can also be found on the CodeNEXT website under Code Draft 2, or at the provided link: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/CodeNEXT_--_Legal__Administrative_Overview.pdf
A FY18 #1 Adler
Answered: 10/11/2017 12:43 PM
97 Kitchen 2018 10/12/2017 FMTF Recommendations
How does CodeNEXT relate to the Flood Mitigation Task Force recommendations?
Posted
Please see the following link for a summary of the status of FMTF recommendations related to the Land Development Code. ftp://ftp.austintexas.gov/wpdrpostings/Revised%20Docs/FMTF_CodeNEXT.pdf
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:13 AM
98 Kitchen 2018 10/12/2017 Stormwater Management Program
What is the timeline for the 3rd party evaluation of the Regional Stormwater Management Program?
Posted
The Watershed Protection Department (WPD) has contracted a 3rd party consultant to evaluate appropriate RSMP fees consistent with land and construction costs, benchmark the program with other cities, and make recommendations on potential improvements. This evaluation is expected to be completed by July 2018.
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:15 AM
99 Casar 2018 10/12/2017 Impervious Cover
What is the impact of public roadways on citywide impervious cover?
Posted
54% of the public right-of-way is impervious. Impervious cover within the public-right-of way comprises 30% of all citywide impervious cover.
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:17 AM
100 Kitchen 2018 10/12/2017 Drainage infrastructure mapping and costs
Does the flood modeling scope include mapping of drainage infrastructure and the costs of those upgrades? Can we understand the costs of any potential impact?
Posted
Please see the following link for the a summary of the scope of the modeling analysis. ftp://ftp.austintexas.gov/wpdrpostings/Revised%20Docs/CodeNEXT%20Modeling%20Scope.pdf
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:19 AM
101 Tovo 2018 10/12/2017 Map request
Request for maps of impervious cover and tree canopy cover by neighborhood planning areas.
Posted
Please find this information at the following link (http://austintexas.gov/department/proposed-zoning-maps). These summaries and maps reflect the most up-to-date GIS data available for tree canopy (2014 on-the-ground information) and impervious cover (2015 on-the-ground information). Each neighborhood planning area (NPA) summary is limited to the Council District boundary — they do not include NPA areas that extend into other districts. Please note that several districts do not have NPAs for all areas. These non-NPA areas are summarized together in each table as “No NPA."
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:21 AM
102 Pool 2018 10/12/2017 Map request
Request for district maps of flood-related problem areas.
Posted
Please find a map of current Watershed Protection Master Plan creek and localized flood data for each council district at the following link. ftp://ftp.austintexas.gov/wpdrpostings/Flood%20Problems%20By%20Dist/
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:23 AM
103 Houston 2018 10/12/2017 Map request
Request for a map of citywide impervious cover analysis with localized flood problem areas.
Posted
Please find a map of changes from current impervious cover entitlements to proposed Draft 2 impervious cover entitlements at the following link. A green color indicates that the proposed maximum impervious cover has decreased for a particular parcel, while an orange or red color indicates that the proposed maximum impervious cover has increased. Localized flood problem areas are outlined in blue. WPD’s analysis shows that citywide impervious cover entitlements decrease by 0.57% from current code to Draft 2. Draft 2 summary table: ftp://ftp.austintexas.gov/wpdrpostings/Revised%20Docs/Draft_2_IC_table.pdf Draft 2 map: ftp://ftp.austintexas.gov/wpdrpostings/Revised%20Docs/Citywide_IC_change_Draft2_captions_pctchange.pdf
Answered: 10/20/2017 11:27 AM
104 Pool 2018 10/18/2017 Active Mode Analysis Implementation
Division 23-9C-1 in the new code contains the details on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), Neighborhood Transportation Analysis (NTA), and the new Active Mode Analysis (AMA). It appears to implement these analysis in Subsection (C) of Section 23-9C-1010 (Mitigation of Transportation Impacts), which authorizes the director to require an applicant to provide improvements identified in the TIA or the NTA. However, this section does not include a reference to the AMA. Is this exclusion an error or is the new code not proposing to provide for mitigation of improvements identified through the AMA? For reference, 23-9C-1010(C): "If a proposed development requires a transportation impact analysis under Section 23-9C-2020 (Transportation Impact Analysis Required) or a neighborhood transportation analysis under Section 23-9C-2040 (Neighborhood Transportation Analysis Required), the applicable Director may require an applicant to construct or fund system improvements identified by the analysis."
Posted
The new Active Mode Analysis (AMA) is a part of Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and are not considered mutually exclusive. AMA assess the need for additional active mode connections to accommodate active mode-trips between a proposed development and major non-auto trip generators, providing a multi-modal approach in the TIA. Because AMA is a part of TIA, the code authorizes the Director to require an applicant to provide improvements identified in AMA as well.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:17 PM
105 Pool 2018 10/18/2017 Transportation Demand Management & Saturated Transportation Roadway Networks
Subsection (E) of Section 23-9C-1010 (Mitigation of Transportation Impacts) authorizes, but does not require, the director to require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for a project "within or adjacent to a saturated transportation roadway network." Q1: What constitutes a "saturated transportation roadway network?" Q2: Considering this section authorizes but does not require the director to require a TDM, what criteria will the director use to determine whether to require a TDM or not? Q: Where will the criteria (from Q2) and the definition of "saturated transportation roadway network" (from Q1) be officially specified? For reference, 23-9C-1010(E): "The applicable Director may require an applicant to implement Transportation Demand Management for a development project within or adjacent to a saturated transportation roadway network, as a mitigation strategy as per Section 23-9H-1040 Transportation Demand Management Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance)."
Posted
Response to Q1: A saturated transportation roadway network is a roadway network where there is very limited opportunity to add additional capacity (additional travel/turn lanes etc.) to accommodate additional traffic. Response to Q2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan may be required based on saturated roadway network conditions or discretion of the Director. The Director would evaluate the location and type of a proposed development for a context-sensitive approach to determine whether TDM is appropriate. The Director would also assess the constraints that exist in the way of constructing additional capacity (additional travel/turn lanes etc.). TDM may also be required based on the TDM section of the Code, independent of saturated roadway network conditions or discretion of the Director. As an example, if a mixed use development is proposed within the downtown core where there is no opportunity for increase in capacity, a TDM strategy would better manage the travel demand to/from the proposed development at the source and thus manage/address any additional transportation impacts from the proposed development. The need, applicability, feasibility, and appropriateness of TDM would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis assessing the location, type, and mix of developments; and the physical constraints that exist on the roadway network adjacent to the proposed development. Another example is using TDM for developments that have on-site constraints in providing code-required parking; TDM could reduce parking demand with a plan agreed upon by the Director. Response to Q3: “Saturated Transportation Roadway Network” will be defined within the Transportation Criteria Manual (TCM). The Austin Transportation Department (ATD) recently launched a TCM rewrite working group, where we will be exploring up to date best practice standards, and will be tailoring the TCM to be locally context-sensitive to ensure that the updated TCM is in line with Imagine Austin and the Transportation Plan.
Answered: 11/27/2017 03:38 PM
106 Pool 2018 10/18/2017 Desirable Operating Levels for Streets
The draft code appears to eliminate former Section 25-6-116 (Desirable Operating Levels for Certain Streets), which specified the city's standards for determining whether streets are operating at a desirable level based on daily traffic figures. What will our standards for desirable operating levels be going forward, where will these standards be located (ie. will they be in the Transportation Criteria Manual?), and how will those standards be determined?
Posted
Subsection A of Section 23-9C-2020 (Transportation Impact Analysis Required) states that a person submitting a site plan application, a subdivision application, or a zoning or rezoning application must prepare and submit a transportation impact analysis (as per the Transportation Criteria Manual following City of Austin’s Guidelines for Transportation Impact Analysis). City of Austin’s Guidelines for Transportation Impact Analysis provides acceptable level of service based on an engineering analysis of intersection operations rather than broad standards in Section 25-6-166 that do not take into account the context of individual streets. Also, there will be guidance on typical daily volumes for different classification of roads in the Transportation Criteria Manual.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:18 PM
107 Pool 2018 10/18/2017 Rough Proportionality & R.O.W. Dedication/Reservation
Subsection (B) of Section 23-9B-1050 (Dedication and Reservation of Existing Right-of-Way) specifies that right-of-way dedication/reservation outside of the development cannot exceed the share owed under rough proportionality. Does this mean that even if a developer wanted to dedicate R.O.W. over and above what is required for a purpose that would serve her development, the city would be unable to legally accept it? For reference, Section 23-9B-1050(B): "Any right-of-way dedications or reservations, other than dedications or reservations internal to the development shall not exceed the roughly proportionate share of the proposed development."
Pending  
108 Pool 2018 10/18/2017 Civic Open Space & Transit Plaza/Park
The existing code (Subsection (B) of Subchapter E, Section 2.7.3 - Standards) prioritizes placing common open space adjacent to bus rapid transit stations, to the maximum extent feasible. This provision is carried forward in the draft code in Subsection (C)(3) of Section 23-4C-2030 (Common Open Space). The draft code also establishes a new requirement of civic open space in Division 23-4C-2 meant to improve the quality of required open space. Division 23-4C-2 lists out the different types of civic open spaces and contains basic standards for each type. However, there is not yet a Transit Plaza/Park type. Given the code's existing prioritization of transit-oriented open space (and the Code Advisory Group's recommendation in C-14 of their report to prioritize civic space at transit stops), has staff considered establishing a Transit Plaza/Park type targeted at meeting this need?
Posted
This provision is carried forward in 23-4C-1030(C)(3) of Draft 2.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:20 PM
109 Adler 2018 10/25/2017 Mapping Process
Please share staff’s process to map CodeNEXT.
Posted
The following link summarizes staff’s process for mapping CodeNEXT. http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/CodeNEXT/CodeNEXT_Mapping_Process.pdf
Answered: 10/25/2017 12:56 PM
110 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Parking
What policy options exist to develop residential parking reductions that are context specific to include variables such as street widths and the existence of sidewalks?
Pending  
111 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Parking
What policy options exist to develop commercial parking reductions that are context specific to include variables such as the proximity of transit, existing sidewalks and the sidewalk master plan?
Pending  
112 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Alcohol Sales
Please provide a list of the zoning categories in Draft 2 that allow for the sale of alcohol, including the sale of alcohol in restaurants or convenience stores? Please do not limit this list to only zones that allow for cocktail lounges or liquor stores.
Posted
MU1B, MU1D, MU2A, MU2B, MU3A, MU4A, MU4B, MU5A, MS1B, MS2B, MS2C, MS3A, MS3B, CC, UC, DC, CR, CW, IF, IG, R&D, AV, P
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:21 PM
113 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Cocktail lounges
Please provide a list of the zones in draft 2 that allow for either cocktail lounges or adult entertainment, or both uses.
Posted
Bar/Nightclub (formerly Cocktail Lounge): MU1B, MU1D, MU2B, MU3A, MU4A, MU4B, MU5A, MS1B, MS2B, MS2C, MS3A, MS3B, CC, UC, DC, AV, P Adult Entertainment: MU4B, MU5A, CC, DC, IF, IG, IH
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:22 PM
114 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 FAR and 25 foot wide lots
What FAR limits are included in Draft 2 for residential lots that are 25 feet wide?
Posted
For nonconforming lots as small as 2500 sf that have not been aggregated, there is no FAR limit and impervious cover is limited to 65%. (See 23-2G-2020)
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:23 PM
115 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Attic and Basement exemptions
Do the staff or consultants anticipate that Draft 3 will include an attic and/or basement exemption within the form controls of residential zones mapped for neighborhoods currently subject to the McMansion ordinance?
Posted
Yes, staff anticipates that attics and basements will be exempted from FAR calculations for R zones that have an FAR limit.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:25 PM
116 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Minor Use Permits
Please provide a list of the uses that can be approved with a Minor Use Permit.
Posted
Please see the following tables, which summarize which land uses are allowed via MUP in which zones. Residential House-Scale zones: TABLE 23-4D-2030(A), TABLE 23-4D-2030(B), TABLE 23-4D-2030(C). Residential Multi-Unit zones: TABLE 23-4D-3030(A). Mixed-Use zones: TABLE 23-4D-4030(A); TABLE 23-4D-4030(B). Main Street zones: TABLE 23-4D-5030(A). Regional Commercial zones: TABLE 23-4D-6030(A). Commercial and Industrial zones: TABLE 23-4D-7030(A). Other zones: TABLE 23-4D-8030(A).
Answered: 11/27/2017 03:41 PM
117 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Affordability Calibrations
Austin currently has an estimated 65,000 units of "low-rate market rent" housing. How will proposed new entitlements be calibrated and mapped to ensure minimal loss of current market affordable housing?
Posted
Proposed entitlements for those properties, which are primarly multifamily (MF today, RM in Draft 2), are not substantially different from today's entitlements, so demolition should not be incentivized. However, should those properties turn over, the new Austin Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) will apply to many of the RM (multifamily) zones, where it does not currently apply at all in today's code.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:26 PM
118 Alter 2018 10/27/2017 Fee-in-lieu schedule
When will the proposed affordable housing fee-in-lieu schedule be available and will an analysis be provided to demonstrate the criteria that was used to set them?
Posted
Because developers' ability to pay a fee is related to market conditions, such as labor costs and average rents, a fee schedule is expected to be initially developed in 2018, as close as possible to the day of CodeNEXT adoption to reflect the market. The methodology for initially setting the fees can be shared with Council prior to that calibration. To allow for more frequent recalibration as market conditions change, it is anticipated that the designated review committee referenced in the draft code (Section 23-3e-1080B) will evaluate and make recommendations on recalibrating the fees on an annual basis.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:28 PM
119 Adler 2018 10/31/2017 Redlined Version of Draft
Please provide a redlined version of Draft 1 to Draft 2 of CodeNEXT.
Posted
A copy of the redlined version of Draft 1 to Draft 2 can be found here: http://austintexas.gov/codenext/draft1#overlay-context
Answered: 10/31/2017 03:36 PM
120 Alter 2018 11/02/2017 Preserving older structures
Beyond the allowance of additional height for an ADU, do our consultants or staff have any additional best practice recommendations on how to incentivize the preservation of older single-family homes while encouraging the development of an ADU on the property to allow for more infill housing?
Posted
Staff and consultants are looking at additional incentives, beyond height, that would encourage the retention of the original home when an ADU is added to a property. Additional options will be shared upon release of Draft 3.
Answered: 12/04/2017 10:25 AM
121 Alter 2018 11/02/2017 R2 and R3 Zoning
If a property owner with existing R2C zoning was requesting their zoning to be R3C, what criteria would the staff use to determine whether or not to recommend that change in zoning for a single property?
Posted
Staff will follow established mapping criteria and analyze the request based on diection given by Imagine Austin, Neighborhood Plans (as applicable), existing land uses, existing context, and Community Character Manual review. The request is considered but does not necessarily result in a change to the zoning map.
Answered: 11/16/2017 03:29 PM
122 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Drive-through Fast Food
Please provide a list of zoning categories that would allow drive-through restaurants either by right or with a MUP or CUP.
Posted
Please see the following tables, which summarize which land uses are allowed via MUP in which zones. Residential House-Scale zones: TABLE 23-4D-2030(A), TABLE 23-4D-2030(B), TABLE 23-4D-2030(C). Residential Multi-Unit zones: TABLE 23-4D-3030(A). Mixed-Use zones: TABLE 23-4D-4030(A); TABLE 23-4D-4030(B). Main Street zones: TABLE 23-4D-5030(A). Regional Commercial zones: TABLE 23-4D-6030(A). Commercial and Industrial zones: TABLE 23-4D-7030(A). Other zones: TABLE 23-4D-8030(A).
Answered: 11/21/2017 10:09 AM
123 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Commercial Uses
Please provide a list of Mixed Use and Main Street Zones that prohibit both adult oriented businesses and indoor entertainment. Please also provide a list any of the Mixed Use and Main Street Zones that would allow both adult oriented businesses and indoor entertainment with an MUP or CUP.
Posted
Please see the following tables, which summarize which land uses are allowed via MUP in which zones. Residential House-Scale zones: TABLE 23-4D-2030(A), TABLE 23-4D-2030(B), TABLE 23-4D-2030(C). Residential Multi-Unit zones: TABLE 23-4D-3030(A). Mixed-Use zones: TABLE 23-4D-4030(A); TABLE 23-4D-4030(B). Main Street zones: TABLE 23-4D-5030(A). Regional Commercial zones: TABLE 23-4D-6030(A). Commercial and Industrial zones: TABLE 23-4D-7030(A). Other zones: TABLE 23-4D-8030(A).
Answered: 11/21/2017 10:16 AM
124 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Land Use Commissions
Please provide a list or description of the cases or business that would go to the Planning Commission and a list of cases or business that would go to the Zoning and Platting Commission under the current draft of the code. For example, which if any CUP cases would go to the Zoning and Platting Commission?
Posted
There are no anticipated change for review authority for Land Use Commissions. See TABLE 23-2A-1030(A) for approval overview. CUPs will continue to go to ZAP or PC, depending on geography.
Answered: 11/27/2017 03:40 PM
125 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Non-conforming structures
Please provide the sections of the code that detail how a property owner would be treated if they own a house that complies with the existing code, but under the draft code their house is non conforming, and their house is partially destroyed in a fire. If the property owner was trying to rebuild their house under the same height and footprint that exists today, would they be able to do that under the new code?
Posted
The property owner would have to comply with 23-2G-1070(B) - Involuntary Damage or Destruction.
Answered: 11/30/2017 01:46 PM
126 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Formal Dispute Resolution for Neighborhood Plan Contact Teams
In instances where the Director presents a report to the Planning Commission within 30 days of completing informal dispute resolution, and if after review the Planning Commissions recommends a more formal mediation or dispute resolution: what is the definition of a neutral third party? Who would select the neutral third party? Would the city staff make recommendations to the Planning Commission on potential third parties, or would it be the responsibility of the Planning Commission to identify potential neutral third parties? Would the third-party mediation have any costs associated with them, and who would pay any potential costs?
Pending  
127 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Short-Term Rentals
Understanding that accessory dwelling units cannot be used for short-term rentals, would accessory dwelling units or duplexes be counted within the total number of single-family detached residential units that can be used as short-term rentals? In other words, if a census tract has 300 single family homes, and 100 accessory dwelling units, what is the maximum number of single-family detached residential units in that census tract that could be used as a short-term rental? If a census tract has 100 duplexes, 200 accessory dwelling units, and 200 single-family homes, what is the maximum number of short-term rentals that would be allowed in that census tract?
Posted
Short Term Rental (STR) Type 2 licenses included a cap on the percentage of STRS allowed to legally operate in each census tract of the city. However, Type 2 STR licenses have been discontinued. Type 1 STRs are the only permitted STR license for single family, duplex, and ADU uses. There is no cap on the number of Type 1 STR licenses.
Answered: 11/28/2017 09:28 AM
128 Alter 2018 11/09/2017 Alternative Equivalent Compliance
Who specifically would be the responsible director to determine alternative equivalent compliance on individual cases? In what ways, if any, has the alternative equivalent compliance process changed in the draft code from the existing code?
Posted
The Development Services Department Director would be the responsible director to determine alternative equivalent compliance. In the existing code, Subchapter E has two systems of relief from design standards: 1. Minor Modification is based on a percentage and does not require an equivalent alternative; or 2. Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) requires an equivalent alternative and does not have a percentage limitation. In Draft 2, there is only be one system of relief from design standards which is named Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC). AEC in Draft 2 has the same percentage limitations used in the existing code’s Minor Modification system.
Answered: 11/28/2017 02:36 PM
129 Pool 2018 11/16/2017 Street Parking
How does potentially increased street parking affect trash pickup?
Posted
Increased street parking reduces the ability to use automated systems, such as mechanical arms used to lift and empty the carts. As a result, additional staff are required to manually pick up carts and other material. Additionally, areas with high levels of street parking increase the difficulty of vehicle maneuverability. Increased street parking impacts all ARR curbside services including: trash collection, recycling collection, compost collection, yard trimming and brush collection, bulk collection as well as street sweeping.
Answered: 11/28/2017 09:31 AM
130 Pool 2018 11/16/2017 Buildings Per Lot
Is the deletion of the buildings per lot regulations between Drafts 1 and 2 a mistake or a proposal? Or is there a corresponding regulation that would limit the number of structures explicitly, other than through things like imperv., FAR, etc.?
Posted
Regulating the number of buildings per lot was related to transect zones, which were removed from Draft 2. The removal of the building per lot regulation in Draft 2 was intentional and will be carried forward in Draft 3. The amount of development allowed in a zone will be limited by site development standards: FAR, impervious cover, building cover, setbacks, etc. The number of dwelling units per lot will be limited, and specified by zone.
Answered: 12/04/2017 10:40 AM
131 Alter 2018 11/17/2017 Bar and Restaurant Parking
Several community forums have included commentary that the draft code would require more parking for bars than restaurants. Can staff please clarify whether or not that is the case? Additionally, please provide a summary of the parking requirements for both bars and restaurants, and please provide a summary of the rationale that led to the requirements for each of those uses?
Pending