LDC Second Reading Amendments
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:18 pm
Colleagues,
Below you will find amendments I intend to offer next week. These amendments relate to matters of public safety, missing middle zoning criteria, and facilitating certainty in our zoning and planning processes. My constituents and I have had an extremely limited number of days to review the latest draft and determine policy direction that might improve the product, so, if necessary, I may bring other amendments to address concerns I hear from my constituents.
1. To the extent feasible, consider amendments to LDC review procedures and/or site development standards to ensure that the Austin Fire Department requires the same level of Fire Code compliance for multi-unit development utilizing a condominium regime as for development located on individual lots. Required compliance should include, but not be limited to, safe evacuation and ingress/egress requirements.
2. Consider appropriate LDC revisions, as well as amendments to interlocal agreements or changes in procedures, that will help to ensure parking and transportation-related requirements meet the needs of school districts at individual campuses. To the extent changes cannot be implemented through LDC adoption, identify measures to be initiated for future consideration.
3. Consider appropriate changes to mapping and zoning criteria for Centers, with the goal of better tailoring density levels to the context of each individual center. To the extent more refined mapping and zoning criteria cannot be incorporated into the LDC Revision, propose a work program for more individualized map changes to be considered following LDC adoption.
4. To the extent feasible, consider amendments to the LDC zoning procedures that would restrict or prohibit revising zoning applications to change the proposed boundary following a public hearing on a zoning case following the Land Use Commission’s public hearing and/or after a specified number of days following submittal of the application. If revisions to proposed boundaries are proposed after the deadline, a new application would be required and would be subject to general restrictions on submitting the same or substantially similar zoning applications.
5. Consider revisions to proposed LDC provisions related to private deed restrictions to avoid implying that zoning regulations override or affect private obligations imposed by deed restrictions.
6. Provide the impact on housing capacity if the mapping and zoning criteria for transportation corridors were revised to zone RM1 and R4 residential zones no more than 2 lots in from Project Connect corridors identified in the Long-Term Vision Plan.
Regards,
Alison Alter
Below you will find amendments I intend to offer next week. These amendments relate to matters of public safety, missing middle zoning criteria, and facilitating certainty in our zoning and planning processes. My constituents and I have had an extremely limited number of days to review the latest draft and determine policy direction that might improve the product, so, if necessary, I may bring other amendments to address concerns I hear from my constituents.
1. To the extent feasible, consider amendments to LDC review procedures and/or site development standards to ensure that the Austin Fire Department requires the same level of Fire Code compliance for multi-unit development utilizing a condominium regime as for development located on individual lots. Required compliance should include, but not be limited to, safe evacuation and ingress/egress requirements.
2. Consider appropriate LDC revisions, as well as amendments to interlocal agreements or changes in procedures, that will help to ensure parking and transportation-related requirements meet the needs of school districts at individual campuses. To the extent changes cannot be implemented through LDC adoption, identify measures to be initiated for future consideration.
3. Consider appropriate changes to mapping and zoning criteria for Centers, with the goal of better tailoring density levels to the context of each individual center. To the extent more refined mapping and zoning criteria cannot be incorporated into the LDC Revision, propose a work program for more individualized map changes to be considered following LDC adoption.
4. To the extent feasible, consider amendments to the LDC zoning procedures that would restrict or prohibit revising zoning applications to change the proposed boundary following a public hearing on a zoning case following the Land Use Commission’s public hearing and/or after a specified number of days following submittal of the application. If revisions to proposed boundaries are proposed after the deadline, a new application would be required and would be subject to general restrictions on submitting the same or substantially similar zoning applications.
5. Consider revisions to proposed LDC provisions related to private deed restrictions to avoid implying that zoning regulations override or affect private obligations imposed by deed restrictions.
6. Provide the impact on housing capacity if the mapping and zoning criteria for transportation corridors were revised to zone RM1 and R4 residential zones no more than 2 lots in from Project Connect corridors identified in the Long-Term Vision Plan.
Regards,
Alison Alter