06/28 CodeNEXT Worksession

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

06/28 CodeNEXT Worksession

Postby Steve Adler » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:01 am


We have another CodeNEXT work session scheduled for this Wednesday, June 28 from 1:00 – 3:00.

Below are topics to be covered, including topics we intended to cover last week, but did not have the time to address sufficiently:

• Neighborhood Plans, Small Area Plans, and Code Next
• Code Next, Imagine Austin, and the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map
• Parking and flooding issues as related to mapping
• Draft 2 Format and Zone Naming Convention

If you have specific questions related to these topics, please post them ahead of time to make our time more efficient.

The topics below were also identified as important issues that have been raised in the community, and the Mayor Pro Tem and I are planning on scheduling additional CodeNEXT discussions in August to cover them as well.

• Process and procedure changes in CodeNEXT text
• Infrastructure needs, flooding, and planning in the context of CodeNEXT
• Environmental Regulations

Thank you and see you all at the meeting on Wednesday.

Steve Adler
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:12 pm

Re: 06/28 CodeNEXT Worksession

Postby Louisa Brinsmade » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:07 pm

Hello Colleagues:

Here are some of my questions for our CodeNEXT work session tomorrow on the topics the Mayor has mentioned.

Imagine Austin and the Growth Concept Map discussion:
1. 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?
2. Will staff provide metrics on how closely the CodeNEXT written drafts and the draft maps align with Imagine Austin stated priorities and the Growth Concept Map?
3. 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?

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.
1. Can staff clarify how the mapping decisions were made?

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?

Future 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?

Parking Requirements Discussion:
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?
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?
3. Why did staff not reserve parking reductions for use in our density bonus programs?

I'm looking forward to our discussion tomorrow.

Leslie Pool, Council Member District 7
Policy Advisor
Office of Leslie Pool, District 7
Louisa Brinsmade
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:27 pm

Re: 06/28 CodeNEXT Worksession

Postby Alison Alter » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:53 pm


I have the following questions related to Imagine Austin implementation and the Growth Concept Map:

1. On page 118 of Imagine Austin, LUT P4 states that we should, “protect neighborhood character by directing growth to areas of change that include designated redevelopment areas, corridors, and infill sites.” Could staff and the consultants please explain how they applied this principle to their mapping? What were the designated redevelopment areas, corridors, and infill sites? How many additional housing units do we anticipate will be added to those designated redevelopment areas, corridors, and infill sites? How many did we anticipate would be added to those sites under the existing code?

2. On page 119 of Imagine Austin, LUT P10 states that we should, “direct housing and employment growth to activity centers and corridors, preserving and integrating existing affordable housing where possible.” Could staff and the consultants please explain how they directed growth (residential and job related) through their mapping to the activity centers and corridors? Again, it would be helpful to understand exactly how many housing units we anticipate adding in these designated centers and corridors.

3. On page 118 of Imagine Austin, a best practice known as “successional zoning” is described. Please explain if this best practice was integrated into the draft code, and if so, how.

Due to a prior commitment, I am unable to attend this special work session. I would appreciate it if the staff and consultants would be sure to address these questions.

Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10
Alison Alter
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Return to City of Austin Council Message Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests