Page 1 of 1

Ellis Direction on High-Opportunity Missing Middle Mapping

Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:18 pm
by Julie Montgomery
Dear colleagues,

Here is an amendment I have drafted regarding the mapping of missing middle housing in high-opportunity areas. I'm interested in your thoughts and welcome your feedback as together we pursue a more equitable, sustainable future for our city.

The goal of this amendment is to ensure we are holding tight to our May 2nd direction to enable all types of homes for all kinds of people in all parts of town -- including high opportunity areas -- and support our mode shift goals, in a manner that takes community input into consideration and more closely ties the mapping of missing middle housing in high opportunity areas to community features that have a high likely degree of permanence.

Specifically, from the Supplemental Staff Report #2, I plan to propose amending the "MAP-2 High Opportunity Areas" recommendation to read as follows:

"(a) To increase the supply of missing middle housing in recognized high opportunity areas, consider map revisions that locate additional missing middle housing opportunities near:
• Imagine Austin Centers
• Parks
• Schools
• Grocery stores
• Mobility bond-funded improvements, including, but not limited to, corridor mobility and local mobility projects
• Other major capital infrastructure projects intended to enhance mobility,
As well as in/on:
• Corner lots
• Areas of predominantly duplex use that are currently drafted as R2
• Areas in which MU or RM is currently adjacent to R2 on a street grid.

For the purposes of this high-opportunity missing middle (HOMM) mapping, lots generally should be considered near the above-listed community features if they are within a five-minute walk, and staff should consider the mapping of R3 as well as R4 and RM1, in a context-sensitive manner.

(b) Furthermore, consider map revisions that apply R2 zoning to lots that were proposed for HOMM in the October 4th draft map solely on the basis of the presence of a limited-service/flyer bus route, unless Capital Metro can provide a commitment that the route will be upgraded to at least a regular-frequency local route before the implementation of the LDC revisions.

(c) Finally, to ensure we meet our missing middle and overall housing capacity goals, the net impact of the application of sections (a) and (b) above must be neutral or positive on HOMM capacity. In other words, any reduction in missing middle housing capacity from section (b) should not exceed the addition of missing middle housing capacity from section (a)."

I hope you will consider supporting this amendment on Monday and, in the meantime, sharing any feedback you may have here on the message board.