CodeNEXT work session 06/14

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Steve Adler
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:12 pm

CodeNEXT work session 06/14

Post by Steve Adler »

Colleagues,

For our Wednesday June 14 worksession, I offer the specific questions below related to the posted CodeNEXT topics. Please post any related specific questions you may have in advance of the worksession.

June 14, 2017 1-3 p.m.

Agenda (1/3): Transect 3 (T3), Transect 4 (T4), and Low Medium Density Residential zoning (LMDR), with modeling and staff rationale for related mapping proposals

Questions:
What is the rationale staff considered in deciding to propose transect zoning rather than non-transect zoning in certain single family neighborhoods?
How will the new code allow for expansions and renovations of existing single family homes that become non-conforming under new zoning? (incentivize expansions/renovations rather than demolitions)
Do transect zones equate to greater density?
• Yield (number of units)
• Volume/Massing of buildings

Can you speak to documents circulating in the community comparing new zoning to existing zoning?
 Eg., Drawings comparing volume/massing on lots
 Eg., Tables comparing uses and development standards


Agenda (2/3):
Housing preservation analysis in response to Resolution 20170126-038

Questions:
 Units being demolished?
 Units being created?


Agenda (3/3):
Envision Tomorrow analysis, reprised
Mayor
Alison Alter
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:52 pm

Re: CodeNEXT work session 06/14 and 6/13

Post by Alison Alter »

At last week’s CodeNext session, the consultants suggested that T3 on a 50'x135' lot would produce 3,300 s.f. vs. SF-3 yielding 2,700 s.f. That suggests a 600 sq feet increase in entitlement. I know these were calculations done on the fly so I am requesting further clarification. Specifically, I would like to understand the accuracy of the below calculations comparing SF-3 and T3.

I also would like to know how the allowable square footage under T4 differs if I were building a “Duplex – Side to Side” vs. a “Duplex – Stacked”. (I suspect I am crossing two work sessions here.)

Thanks,
Alison Alter

***********************************
SF-3 to T3 Example (Part I):

A 50'x135' lot is 6,750 s.f. Under McMansion, the .4 FAR would give you a limit of 2,700 s.f..

SF-3 zoning allows ADU's, so the apples/apples comparison would have an ADU in the T3 example.

T3 as proposed gives me 3,319 s.f. of house or duplex, plus 1,344 s.f. of ADU, which totals 4,663 s.f. of total house. On that same 6,750 s.f. lot, that's a .69 FAR, which is 75% larger than a .4 FAR.

SF-3: 6,750 s.f. lot x .4 FAR = 2,700 s.f. (with or without ADU)
T3: 3,319 s.f. house or duplex + 1,344 s.f. ADU = 4,663 s.f.

Both scenarios assume that the property would be built out to the 45% impervious cover limit, which is nearly universal with new home construction in central Austin.

Are these calculations accurate? If not, how do you think they differ and why?

***********************************
SF-3 to T3 Example (Part II):

As you know, there is a direct correlation between cost of a home and its gross square footage. Bigger house = higher price. We're talking about a lot of money being added. In the heart of Rosedale, I understand a main house would typically sell for $350/s.f. or more and the ADU unit would sell for $450/s.f. or more. [Note these $/s.f. are estimates for illustration.]

SF-3
6,750 s.f. lot x .4 FAR = 2,700 s.f. (with or without ADU)
2,700 s.f. x $350 = $945k

T3
3,319 s.f. house or duplex + 1,344 s.f. ADU= 4,663 s.f.
(3,319 x $350) + (1,344 x $450) = $1,766,450

There's over an $800,000 dollar difference in entitlement between SF-3 and T3 on a typical lot. And a whole lot more of an increase comparing actual square footage which in many case may be more on the order of 1300 sf.
Entitlement determines the value of "tear-down" properties. Adding a big increase in entitlement means that if this code is adopted, developers would be willing to pay much more for properties to tear down.

How should we think about the incentives for demolition created by the proposed code?
What do entitlement increases of this magnitude mean for property taxes?
Are there protections in the proposed code that would yield more units of smaller size rather than just much larger homes?
Council Member, District 10
Kathie Tovo
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:18 am

CodeNEXT 6/14: T3, T4, LMDR, and design sites

Post by Kathie Tovo »

(1) I would like to discuss design site regulations.

(2) Last week I posted the following questions as they related to McMansion. Since we did not discuss them, I have altered them slightly to fit within this week's topic about properties with residential zoning.

Please compare the following:

(a) existing single family 3 regulations
(b) Transect Zoning 3 Intermediate Setback / Transect Zoning 4 Intermediate Setback
(c) 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 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

I would also like to identify any other changes from current to proposed code, including changes to compatibility and McMansion based on which of the above zoning categories a property has been assisgned.
Council District 9
Kathie Tovo
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:18 am

CodeNEXT 06/14: Envision Tomorrow

Post by Kathie Tovo »

For Wednesday’s discussion regarding the Envision Tomorrow tool, I have the following initial questions; I expect to have more.

(1) From the first spreadsheet to the second, the numbers seem to have changed. Please explain why.

(2) It appears that under Code Next Transect 3 Neighborhood Intermediate Setback (T3N.IS) would produce:

Redevelopment rate of 15%
Population loss of 2,469
977 households lost
979 units lost

It would also produce 1,651 new households and 1,773 units gained

And Transect 4 Neighborhood Intermediate Setback (T4N.IS) would produce:

Redevelopment rate of 25%
Population loss of 2,989
1,307 Households lost
1,363 units lost

It would also produce 2,200 new households and 2,346 new units

•Is my interpretation above correct?

•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?

(3) 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.

(4) I’d also like to review the sales price data, especially for T3 and T4 categories.
Council District 9
Locked