Proposed outline for Tuesday's discussion (6/5)

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Kathie Tovo
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:18 am

Proposed outline for Tuesday's discussion (6/5)

Post by Kathie Tovo » Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:59 pm

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks to everyone who contributed topics for discussion and to the Mayor/consultants/staff for compiling many of these into a document with supplemental questions.

After reflecting and talking with others some more about how best to begin this process of evaluating Draft 3, I offer the following as a proposal for how we might frame tomorrow’s discussion.

This proposed outline selects items from the document the Mayor posted on Saturday and suggests an order of discussion. Here and there, I’ve added some additional questions and labelled them as “new.”

The intent here is to carve out a manageable amount of material for tomorrow, while still allowing us to begin understanding where we have points of consensus and agreement and the general contours of the decisions we have ahead.

Please note that the document doesn’t seek to be a comprehensive discussion about any of these topics or a *prioritized* list. Although many detailed questions didn't made it from the Saturday list to this one, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't tackle those, and soon -- merely that it might make sense to focus on the broader questions first before diving into layers of details.

Importantly, I would also suggest that embedding the staff presentations within these discussion sections rather than having a full staff presentation in the beginning could be a more effective strategy given the complexity and range of the issues with which we’re dealing.

I’d be happy to provide a fuller discussion tomorrow of the rationale for the approach.

I’m looking forward to beginning our conversation tomorrow.

Kathie Tovo
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member District 9

Draft Policy Topics 6.5.18

II. Provide more housing choices and supply for Austinites at all stages of life and incomes

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?

III. Preserve and respect neighborhood identity and quality of life

III.C Compatibility

III.C.2 Should transition zones be used between centers and corridors and residential house-scaled neighborhood cores?

New: What are the different definitions of “transition zone” that have emerged in discussions about Code Next? If creating “transition zones” becomes an approved Council goal, how can we create a community-driven process for evaluating and designing those?

II.A Strategic Housing Blueprint

II.A.3 Which are the best tools in the Strategic Housing Blueprint that help meet housing goals?
NEW: Why? Are certain tools most effective in particular areas?

II.B Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)

II.B.1 Should ADUs be allowed in more areas across Austin?
New: Where are they allowed to be built now? What areas don’t currently allow them?

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?
NEW: What housing types are we trying to encourage? Are they missing from the city or missing from certain areas? Who are the most likely occupants for each target housing type (ie. smaller households v. families with children, etc.)?

II.E Housing Supply
II.E.1.a Should there be by-right housing increases allowed [through base entitlements]?
II.E.1.b Should additional by-right housing be allowed only through [a]ffordable [h]ousing [d]ensity [b]onuses?

I. Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing

I.A Income-restricted Housing

I.A.3 Should base zoning entitlements be calibrated with affordable housing bonuses?

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?

III.E Uses with MUPs or CUPs

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)?

IV. Reduce time and cost of permitting by providing more clarity, certainty, and ease of use

IV.A Notification & Public Input

IV.A.2 Should opportunities for public input on development projects change from current code?

IV.B Development Review Timelines and Processes

IV.B.2 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)?

VI. Support small, local businesses and the creative community

VI.C NEW: What is the menu of strategies that can help us meet this goal?

III.D Historic Preservation Incentives and Historic Preservation Districts
Council District 9