Codenext Topics

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.

Codenext Topics

Postby Alison Alter » Sun May 27, 2018 12:55 pm

Dear Colleagues,

During Thursday's meeting, I promised to contribute some topics for our upcoming Codenext deliberations.

I would like to suggest the following:

- Compatibility standards
- Transition zones
- McMansion standards
- Uses (Especially alcohol-related uses, etc.)
- Parkland, civic space, & open space
- Flood mitigation & wildfire mitigation

In addition, I am reposting the document that Mayor Adler, CM Kitchen, and I posted in advance of Draft 3. See http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 195617.pdf. As we address each topic, I believe the key goals identified in this document offer an important frame of reference for crafting consensus moving forward.

I am looking forward to our upcoming discussions and to hearing from the public this Tuesday and next Saturday.

Regards,
Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10
Alison Alter
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Leslie Pool » Sun May 27, 2018 4:12 pm

Colleagues, the Mayor pro tem and I wish to add these issues to the list of topics CM Alter has posted:

Administration & procedures
- Minor Use Permits/Conditional Use Permits
- Notification timelines & public input
Historic preservation incentives and status of Historic Preservation Districts
Base zoning entitlements
- Calibrating these entitlements with density bonuses
- The potential negative impact on the tenant relocation ordinance
Occupancy limits
Density bonus program administration
- Which entity determines on-site vs. off-site vs. fee-in-lieu, etc.

Also, I know all of us and our staff have print copies of Imagine Austin. It's the vision document, and the Code is intended to implement the Plan. I want to make reference to page 207 of Chapter 5 (Implementation and Measuring Success), Item 8 (Revise Austin's development regulations and processes to promote a compact and connected city) in hopes that reminding ourselves of what our Comprehensive Plan directs us to do will anchor our decision-making in the weeks ahead.

Here's an excerpt from page 207:

"The existing neighborhood and area plans were crafted within context of this code and decisions were reached based upon the assumptions of the continued utilization of its provisions. This includes elements of the Land Development Code that are not specifically addressed in neighborhood and area plans but on which decisions were based (e.g., compatibility standards). The vision of the comprehensive plan can be achieved by retaining these protections and the approaches taken in the neighborhood and area plans.

"Any suggested rewrite of the City Code, while striving to achieve the broad goals of the comprehensive plan, must recognize, respect and reflect these carefully crafted compromises, balances, and the assumptions upon which the existing neighborhood and area plans were based and depend.

"Continued protection and preservation of existing neighborhoods and the natural environment must be considered top priorities of comprehensive revisions to the City Code. The consequences and impact of additional density and infill in existing neighborhoods must be carefully identified and analyzed to avoid endangering the existing character of neighborhoods and exacerbating community health and safety issues, such as flooding.

"Impacts on sustainability and livability by increased infill and density of units, including associated infrastructure costs and impacts on affordability, should be identified prior to adoption of a new city code. Modifications to the City code and building code should be measured with regard to their ability to preserve neighborhood character, consistency with adopted neighborhood and area plans, impact on affordability, and the ability of existing families to continue to reside in their homes."
......

Regards,

Leslie Pool and Kathie Tovo
Council Member District 7
Leslie Pool
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:22 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Christopher Hutchins » Mon May 28, 2018 2:55 pm

Colleagues as we prepare to listen to the public comment this week, here are a few topics that I would like to see added to our conversations:

• Equitable distribution of housing density throughout the city


• Number of units allowed per lot (depending on the size) in residential zones 2 - 4


• Parking requirements


• Flood mitigation and wildfire mitigation

CM Houston
Policy Aide
Office of Ora Houston, District 1
Christopher Hutchins
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:58 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Steve Adler » Mon May 28, 2018 9:55 pm

Colleagues,

Council Member Kitchen asked that I post the message below on her behalf, as she is experiencing difficulty posting on the message board this evening.

-s


FROM COUNCILMEMBER ANN KITCHEN

All -
Thank you for posting ideas for topics. Below are suggested topics to be addressed by Council – which includes the topics posted on the Message Board by CM Alter, Tovo, Pool, and Houston. I took a stab at organizing by broad policy category - and the list is not exhaustive, but intended to be something everyone can add to. The list also includes some topics that may overlap somewhat - but I didn’t want to reword any topics that anyone suggested.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 215131.pdf

PERMITTING PROCESSES
1. Reduce time and cost of permitting by providing more clarity, certainty, and ease of use
2. Administration and Procedures
· Minor Use Permits/Conditional Use Permits
· Notification timelines and public input
3. Permitting barriers and home remodeling costs (reduce to help families stay in their homes)
4. Pre-approved building and remodel design options (to help seniors age in place, and middle and lower income households to remain in their neighborhoods)
5. Development review timelines and processes

AFFORDABLE (INCOME RESTRICTED) HOUSING
1. Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing
2. Density Bonus Program administration
· Which entity determines on-site vs off-site vs fee-in-lieu, etc
3. Base Zoning Entitlements
· Calibrating these entitlements with density bonuses
· The potential negative impact on the tenant relocation ordinance
4. Incentives for preservation of existing housing that is affordable
5. Incentives for greater number of family-sized units in income-restricted housing
6. Live/work spaces to support artists, musicians, and small business owners

HOUSING CHOICES
1. Provide more housing choices and supply for Austinites at all stages of life and incomes
2. Occupancy limits
3. Equitable distribution of housing density throughout the city
4. Number of units allowed per lot (depending on the size) in residential zones 2 – 4
5. Housing types and locations (including co-op housing, Type 3 STR in R4)
6. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) (size, incentives to preserve original residence etc)
7. Development and design standards on transportation corridors
8. Housing supply on corridors (balance with non-zoning requirements)

NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE
1. Preserve and respect neighborhood identity and quality of life
2. Compatibility Standards
3. Transition Zones
4. McMansion Standards
5. Uses (especially alcohol-related uses etc)
6. Historic preservation incentives and status of Historic Preservation Districts
7. Parking requirements

WILDFIRE AND FLOOD RISK
1. Reduce wildfire and flood risk and manage runoff as a resource
2. Flood mitigation and wildfire mitigation

TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
1. Enable transportation choices, improve safety, and prepare for our mobility future
2. Street design (traffic signal design, bus stops, bike lanes, curb cuts)
3. Sidewalk design
4. Urban trail connections

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, OPEN SPACE, NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Strengthen environmental protections, increase public open spaces, and conserve natural resources
2. Parkland, civic space and open space
3. Environment and water quality
4. Integrated Green Infrastructure Plan
5. Dark Skies initiative (flood lighting on facades)
6. Functional Green” tools (green roofs and walls, stormwater collection and re-use, rain gardens)
7. Open space requirements

SMALL, LOCAL BUSINESSES AND CREATIVE COMMUNITY
1. Support small, local businesses and the creative community
2. Live/work spaces (Office, retail, and residential spaces)

COSTS OF GROWTH AND PLANNING TOOLS
1. Better manage the costs of growth and provide more effective planning tools
2. Development improvements (transportation impact costs)
3. Energy efficient green building requirements
4. Planning for capacity in our utility and storm water infrastructure
5. Small Area Planning process
Best
Ann Kitchen
City Council D5
Mayor
Steve Adler
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Steve Adler » Mon May 28, 2018 10:22 pm

Thanks for the posted suggestions of Topics from the MPT and CMs Alter, Pool, Houston and Kitchen. They’re good lists and a good start. This should be a living list, meaning that we can add to the Topics list over the course of June to help us focus on a search for consensus opportunities.
My post, here, is to lay out a way that we could approach the Topics, by focusing on Questions that arise from each of the Topics. This post sets out some examples of what such possible Questions following from the “Topics” could look like.
Just like with the Topics lists, these Questions are neither exhaustive nor complete. They are only examples and only deal with some of the “Topics.” (Btw, it follows the outline of the “Key Goals” document CM Alter referred to in her initial post in this string, above.)
For each Topic and Question, the council’s deliberation in search of consensus opportunities could start with the consultants/staff laying out how these topics/questions are addressed in the current Land Development Code, how they are addressed by the Staff Recommendation, and what, if any, changes were recommended by the Commissions.
For discussion and consideration of what possible Questions could look like:

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 220001.pdf

Provide more housing choices and supply for Austinites at all stages of life and incomes
- Should we focus new, denser, mixed-use development on transportation corridors and in activity centers, while generally not increasing entitlements in the core of existing single family neighborhoods?
- What degree of change should be allowed to accommodate transitions between centers and corridors and residential house-scaled neighborhood cores?
- Should we be seeking to allow some measure of additional by-right market rate housing?
- Should we incentivize the development Accessory Dwelling Units and/or multiple units in residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?
- Where should more intense Residential House Scale Zones (R4) and Residential Multi-Unit Zones (RM1 – RM5) be mapped so as to allow for additional housing choice in appropriate places?
- In what way should sites on transportation corridors be able to achieve zoned entitlements/density if there are multiple, competing layers of non-zoning requirements that would otherwise impose a limit?

Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing
- Should we be seeking to maximize the development of income-restricted housing in all parts of the city?
- How should density bonuses be calibrated to maximize the production of income restricted units?
- Should density bonuses be available for residential house scale zones (LA – R4) within existing single family neighborhoods?
- How should we revise S.M.A.R.T. housing to better incentivize affordable housing projects?
- What preservation incentives should be in the new land development code sufficient to discourage demolition of existing single-family homes?
- Should the Eastern Crescent be mapped to reflect existing entitlements? Would this help prevent accelerated displacement of existing residents?
- Should minimum lot sizes be reduced in residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?

Reduce time and cost of permitting by providing more clarity, certainty, and ease of use
(…no suggested questions yet)
Better manage the costs of growth and provide more effective planning tools
(…no suggested questions yet)
Preserve and respect neighborhood identity and quality of life
- How can we deal with compatibility so as to allow sufficient entitlements/density on transportation corridors, while providing carefully considered transitions between existing single family neighborhoods and new mixed-use developments.
- In addition to height and size, how should we minimize the impact of noise and light pollution, deliveries and trash collection in areas of transition?
- How should the existing “McMansion” standards for regulating the scale and form of infill housing in the urban core be carried over into the proposed new code?
- What should the minimum parking requirement be for residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?
- What should be the parking requirements be in residential house scale zones (LA – R4) near schools? in areas with narrow streets? and in areas lacking sidewalks?
- Should minimum parking requirements be reduced or eliminated in areas near transit?
- Should minimum parking requirements for small commercial (office) uses near existing single family neighborhoods be reduced or eliminated?
- In which zones should Cooperative Housing be allowed by-right? or allowed with a Minor Use Permit? or Conditional Use Permit?
- In which zones should small (by number of children) child care uses be allowed by-right? or allowed with a Minor Use Permit? or Conditional Use Permit?
- In which zones should Short Term Rentals be restricted? By STR type?
- In which zones should Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs be allowed by right? or allowed with a Minor Use Permit? or Conditional Use Permit?
- Should we require a higher level of review for Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs within 200 feet of residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?

Reduce wildfire and flood risk and manage runoff as a resource
- Should we require beneficial reuse of storm water on-site for large developments?
- How can we modify our code to better incentivize redevelopment of properties in a manner that yields improved water quality and storm water controls?

Support small, local businesses and the creative community
(…no suggested questions yet)
Enable transportation choices, improve safety, and prepare for our mobility future
(…no suggested questions yet)
Strengthen environmental protections, increase public open spaces, and conserve natural resources
(…no suggested questions yet)

(Separate Note: At our public hearings this week, speakers may raise what they wish. Different Council Members may have different things they want to hear. For me, I am hopeful that speakers will help Council identify topics, issues, areas or ideas where Council might find consensus opportunities so as to help us with our June deliberations.)

- s
Mayor
Steve Adler
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Steve Adler » Sat Jun 02, 2018 6:52 pm

Colleagues,

Below, please find a further evolution of the “Topics/Questions,” incorporating last week’s bulletin board postings of the MPT Tovo and Council Members Alter, Pool, Houston and Kitchen, as organized and elaborated upon by staff and consultants. If this is an acceptable direction, we can still, of course, change and add to it as we see fit. Please make suggestions.

If time allows at today’s public hearing, we can continue our discussion of how, starting June 5th, we work collectively to find opportunities for consensus on the topics Council Members have suggested by talking through related questions. A potential process for handling discussion topics, to start conversations, could be as follows:

Beginning June 5th (starting at 10 am and perhaps going no later than 6 pm):
1. City Staff and consultants very briefly present an overview of their recommendations for code text and map, including errata, and addenda.

2. City Staff provide a very brief overview on the recommendations made by Planning Commission, Zoning and Platting Commission, Environmental Commission, and Historic Landmark Commission, and potentially other commissions.

3. Council could check to see if there is general consensus on the Goals document (Alter, Kitchen, Adler) that CM Alter referenced in her post from last week. [http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincouncilforum/E6-20180209195617.pdf]

4. Council then could discuss issues raised by each Topic/Question, in turn, beginning with staff/consultants laying out the following information for each:

o How the Topic/Question is addressed under the current land development code;
o How each Topic/Question is addressed in the staff recommendation;
o Planning Commission recommendations made for the Topic/Question;
o ZAP recommendation made for the Topic/Question;
o Other City Board or Commission recommendations made for the Topic/Question
o Any staff and consultant reaction or recommendations related to Commission recommendations

5. Council discussion would begin with a series of higher-level policy questions (such as those in the list below), with the opportunity to funnel down to more specific questions and possible policy direction and/or language. At each point, Council would check to see if a consensus opportunity exists (8 or more council members expressing some level of consensus) on Topics and Questions.

o Council could employ a method similar to the “fist-to-five” technique we used during our work to develop our Strategic Direction 2023
o If consensus cannot be achieved on any policy direction for a given Topic/Question, it could be tabled and revisited later in the deliberation process, and Council could move on to the next Topic/Question. Of course, Council could return and reconsider any Topic or Question previously considered.

6. If, after addressing each major topic category, the process suggested above is not resulting in Council finding areas of consensus, the Council may decide to consider an alternate process.

CodeNEXT- City Council Discussion Topics & Questions

LINK: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 184709.pdf

Below are suggested topics, subtopics, and policy questions for guiding Council’s CodeNEXT deliberations. This list is not exhaustive and can be expanded if and as new questions arise during deliberations. This staff/consultant list is only a draft and intended to be a starting point for Council to discuss how deliberations might proceed. Please note that several topics are more fleshed out than others for illustrative purposes. Topics in grey are still very preliminary and not yet ready to be discussed in depth.
LINK
I. Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing
I.A Income-restricted Housing
I.A.1 What is our income-restricted housing goal? What capacity is needed to reach that goal? How often should we evaluate and recalibrate the program to ensure we meet that goal?
I.A.2 How should affordable housing bonuses be calibrated to maximize the production of income-restricted units?
I.A.3 How should base zoning entitlements be calibrated with affordable housing bonuses?
I.A.4 How should we maximize the development of income-restricted housing in all parts of the city? What should be our goals for producing income-restricted housing in moderate, high, and very high opportunity areas?
I.A.5 Should there be incentives for providing a greater number of family-sized units in income-restricted housing?
I.A.6 Should affordable housing bonuses be available in residential house scale zones (LA – R4) to create income-restricted units?
I.A.7 How could we revise S.M.A.R.T. housing to better incentivize affordable housing projects?
I.B Density Bonus Program Administration
I.B.1 When should income restricted housing be required on-site vs. off-site vs. fee-in-lieu, etc.? Which entity should make that determination?
I.C Preserving Existing Affordable Housing
I.C.1 Should preservation incentives, such as larger ADUs or increased FAR, be used to discourage demolition of existing single-family homes?
I.C.2 How should gentrifying areas and areas susceptible to gentrification (such as the Eastern Crescent) be mapped so as to prevent accelerated displacement of low-income residents?
I.C.3 How should older, affordable multifamily properties be zoned to promote affordability?
I.C.4 How can incentives be used to preserve existing housing that is affordable to middle to lower income citizens?
I.D Tenant Relocation Protections
I.D.1 How can tenant relocation programs assist with affordability?
I.D.2 How do base zoning entitlements impact the tenant relocation ordinance?
I.E I.E. Live/Work Spaces to Support Artists, Musicians, and Small Business Owners
II. Provide more housing choices and supply for Austinites at all stages of life and incomes
II.A Strategic Housing Blueprint
II.A.1 What should be our overall housing capacity goal to meet the goals in Imagine Austin and the Strategic Housing Blueprint?
II.A.2 Does Draft Three or Planning Commission recommendations meet our housing capacity and policy goals in the Strategic Housing Blueprint?
II.A.3 Which are the best tools in the Strategic Housing Blueprint that help meet housing goals?
II.A.4 How do we measure and calibrate the non-zoning sections to achieve housing capacity goals along with environmental, transportation and other Imagine Austin goals?

II.B Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
II.B.1 Should ADU’s be allowed in more areas across Austin?
II.B.2 What should be the maximum allowable size of ADUs?
II.B.3 Should ADU's be made more feasible in single family zones (Residential house-scale zones LA - R4)?
II.B.3.a Where should ADUs be made more feasible, such as near transportation corridors or activity centers?
II.B.3.b How should ADUs be made more feasible, such as FAR bonuses for preserving an existing house or parking reductions?
II.C More Housing Types and Choices (House scale multi-unit buildings)
II.C.1 Should more housing choices and types be allowed in more areas across Austin?
II.C.2 Where should more housing choices and types be allowed?
II.C.3 Should there be equitable distribution of housing density throughout the city?
II.C.4 In which zones should Cooperative Housing be allowed?
II.D Fair Housing
II.D.1 How do we measure and calibrate how the land development code affirmatively furthers fair housing over the next 30 years?
II.D.2 How do we create more affordable housing throughout the city, including in high opportunity areas?
II.D.3 What land development policies conflict with or hinder the ability to affirmatively further fair housing?
II.E Housing Supply
II.E.1 Where should more by-right housing be allowed through increased base entitlements?
II.E.1.a Should there be by-right housing increases allowed?
II.E.1.b Should additional by-right housing be allowed only through Affordable Housing Density Bonuses?
II.E.1.c How much new housing on corridors should be by-right versus affordable housing bonus?
II.E.2 Where should more intense Residential House Scale Zones (R4) and Residential Multi-Unit Zones (RM1 – RM5) be mapped so as to allow for sufficient housing choice in appropriate places?
II.E.3 How many dwelling units should be allowed per lot (depending on the size) in residential zones R2 - R4?
II.E.4 In which zones should STRs be allowed by-right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
II.F Prioritize Future Growth along Corridors and in Centers
II.F.1 Should we focus new, denser, mixed-use development achieving our housing goals on transportation corridors and in activity centers, rather than in the core of existing single-family neighborhoods?
II.F.2 What degree of change should be allowed to accommodate transitions between centers and corridors and residential house-scaled areas?
II.F.3 How can we ensure that sites on transportation corridors are able to achieve and balance sufficient housing supply with non-zoning requirements related to environmental protection, open space, reducing flood risk, transportation, infrastructure, urban forest protection, etc.
II.G Cooperative Housing
II.G.1 In which zones should Cooperative Housing be allowed by-right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
II.H Occupancy Limits

III. Preserve and respect neighborhood identity and quality of life
III.A Building Form and Scale
III.A.1 How should existing McMansion standards for regulating the scale and form of infill housing be carried forward or changed in a new code?
III.A.2 How do we incentivize preserving existing affordable structures in residential house scale zones (LA-R4) by making ADUs and additions more feasible?
III.A.3 Would a lower cap on size or FAR and/or allowing more units on lots help incent more affordable housing options?
III.A.4 Would further refining the McMansion standards being carried into the proposed new code such that it fully accounts for the entire built square footage of a building help incentivize preservation of existing smaller homes?
III.B Uses and Parking
III.B.1 In which zones should Short Term Rentals be restricted?
III.B.2 In which zones should Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs be allowed by right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
III.B.3 Should we require higher level of review for Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs within 200 feet of residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?
III.B.4 How could changing parking requirements affect our ability to achieve Strategic Housing Blueprint, public safety, mobility, and other Imagine Austin goals?
III.B.5 What should the minimum parking requirement be for residential house scale zones (LA – R4)? in areas with narrow streets and in areas lacking sidewalks, different size streets, or different sidewalk conditions?
III.B.6 What should the minimum parking requirement be for residential house scale zones (LA – R4)? in areas with access to transit, or other context elements?
III.C Compatibility
III.C.1 How does compatibility affect our Strategic Housing Blueprint housing capacity and other Imagine Austin policy goals?
III.C.2 Should transition zones be used between centers and corridors and residential house-scaled neighborhood cores?
III.C.3 Should compatibility standards be used between centers and corridors and residential house-scaled neighborhood cores?
III.C.4 How should we minimize the impact of noise and light pollution, deliveries and trash collection in areas of transition?
III.C.5 Should minimum lot sizes in residential zone districts (LA – R4) reflect patterns found in existing single family areas?
III.C.6 What lot sizes should be allowed in the City?
III.D Historic Preservation Incentives and Historic Preservation Districts
III.E Uses with MUPs or CUPs
III.E.1 In which zones should STRs be allowed by-right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
III.E.2 In which zones should small (by number of children) child care uses be allowed by-right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
III.E.3 In which zones should Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs be allowed by right, or allowed with a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit?
III.E.4 Should we require higher level of review for Level 1 and 2 Bar/Nightclubs within 200 feet of residential house scale zones (LA – R4)?
III.F Occupancy Limits
III.G Neighborhood Plans
III.G.1 How should Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Maps inform the proposed zoning maps?
IV. Reduce time and cost of permitting by providing more clarity, certainty, and ease of use
IV.A Notification & Public Input
IV.A.1 Should existing notification timelines be changed from current code?
IV.A.2 Should opportunities for public input on development projects change from current code?
IV.A.3 Should the level of notification and opportunities for input, for example for Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits, be commensurate with the potential impact(s) of proposed type of uses?
IV.B Development Review Timelines and Processes
IV.B.1 Should review timelines be shortened? If so, how?
IV.B.2 Should some types of projects have reduced requirements to reduce permitting barriers and home remodeling costs (for example, to help families stay in their homes)
IV.B.3 Should we establish pre-approved building and remodel design options (for example to help seniors age in place, and middle and lower income households to remain in their neighborhoods)?
IV.C Residential Permitting
IV.C.1 Do we want to make diverse housing types more feasible by modifying the site plan process?
IV.C.2 How should permitting barriers and home remodeling costs be addressed to help families stay in their homes as directed by the Family Homestead Initiative

V. Better manage the costs of growth and provide more effective planning tools
V.A Development Impact Fees (including Transportation impact fees)
V.B Energy efficient green building requirements
V.C Planning for capacity in our utility and storm water infrastructure
V.D Small area planning process
V.E F25
V.E.1 Should zoning from the current land development code be preserved via F25? Should it be maintained in some cases and not others? What should be the process for future changes to F25?
VI. Support small, local businesses and the creative community
VI.A Should we allow more live/ work/opportunities by-right?(office, retail, and residential spaces)
VI.B Should there be a more specific zoning category for creative spaces?
VII. Reduce wildfire and flood risk and manage runoff as a resource
VII.A Impervious Cover
VII.B Reduce wildfire and flood risk and manage runoff as a resource
VII.C Flood mitigation and wildfire mitigation
VIII. Enable transportation choices, improve safety, and prepare for our mobility future
VIII.A Parking Reductions
VIII.B Street design (traffic signal design, bus stops, bike lanes, curb cuts)
VIII.C Sidewalk design
VIII.D Urban trail connections
IX. Strengthen environmental protections, increase public open spaces, and conserve natural resources
IX.A Parkland, civic space and open space requirements
IX.B Environment and water quality
IX.C Integrated Green Infrastructure Plan
IX.D Dark Skies initiative (flood lighting on facades)
IX.E “Functional Green” tools (green roofs and walls, stormwater collection and re-use, rain gardens)
IX.F Open space requirements
Mayor
Steve Adler
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: Codenext Topics

Postby Jimmy Flannigan » Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:47 pm

Colleagues,

Since the conclusion of the public hearing, I've been working with CM's Garza and Renteria to propose some language tweaks to the "Goals" document. The three of us are hopeful that our suggestions will help us move closer as a council to more consensus decisions.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 164339.pdf
Jimmy Flannigan
Council Member, District 6
Jimmy Flannigan
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:44 am


Return to City of Austin Council Message Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron