LDC Second Reading Amendments

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Alison Alter
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:52 pm

LDC Second Reading Amendments

Post by Alison Alter » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:18 pm


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.

Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10

Ashley Richardson
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: LDC Second Reading Amendments

Post by Ashley Richardson » Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:59 pm

On behalf of Council Member Tovo:


Below are the amendments I intend to put forth for consideration during second reading.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 145028.pdf

As I indicated at first reading, at a later date I intend to bring forward actions pertaining to ADU financing and repairs for aging multi-family complexes in an attempt to further the priority of encouraging the development ADUs and the preservation of existing affordable multi-family housing.


Policy Aide
Office of Kathie Tovo, Council Member District 9

Louisa Brinsmade
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:27 pm

Re: LDC Second Reading Amendments

Post by Louisa Brinsmade » Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:40 pm

On behalf of Council Member Pool:


Here are my amendments for second reading. I have noted where I am still working with staff on some of the language. I will try to firm that up before second reading. The text is below, and also in a pdf: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 163905.pdf

CM Pool 2nd Reading Amendments


II. Transition Areas (R4 & RM1), (also, V. Non-Zoning)

1. Reducing Proposed Impervious Cover in areas with Localized Flooding.
• Reduce or eliminate transition zoning (R4, RM1) with its higher impervious cover limits from areas identified as having local area flooding issues. (Still working with staff to identify parcels in flooding areas that need our attention, but those details should be available by second reading).

III. Centers & Corridors

2. Make changes to the North Burnet Gateway Regulating Plan subdistricts as part of the new code and maps, treating this regional center intended as Austin’s “Second Downtown” as a “test case” for amending existing regulating plans and Transit Oriented Districts (TODs).
a. Revise the Transit Oriented District (TOD) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) subdistricts within the NBG area to right-size entitlements for desired development, focusing on the parcels between the Broadmoor and McKalla Place tracts for changes.
b. Revise Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), Neighborhood Residential (NR), and Warehouse Mixed Use (WMU) subdistricts to accommodate a wider variety of housing types, especially missing middle, and generally higher housing density.
c. Update the NGB Regulating Plan density bonus program requirements to more closely align with or exceed the proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) requirements and to help meet the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (ASHB) goals; tie all increases of entitlements in all of the subdistricts to an affordability requirement.
d. Review the Warehouse Mixed Use (WMU) and Commercial Industrial (CI) subdistricts, and the existing parcels within, for opportunities to transition to residential and live/work uses.

3. Adjustments to Promote Family-Friendly Mixed-Use Developments within Neighborhoods.
• Adjust MU2 to require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Bar/Nightclub uses to allow for more community input.

4. Promoting Live/Work Character Districts
a. Review District 7 application of new zones for consistency, especially in areas with recent “Character” or “Special” district designations as part of a recently adopted neighborhood plan.
b. For example, Buell Avenue in the North Shoal Creek neighborhood is designated as the “Buell Avenue Special District”. Notably, this growing live/work area is a community asset identified in the recent neighborhood plan as a gathering space to “incorporate spaces for tradespeople, shop keepers, craftspeople, artists, and residents to interact while enjoying the calm live/work environment.” An adjustment to the mapping on Buell Avenue from "MU5B-Q' to "IF" on both sides of the avenue, for instance, would better reflect consistency and alignment with the North Shoal Creek Neighborhood Plan designation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).

IV. Affordable Housing

5. Preserving Existing Affordable Multifamily
a. Use available data, i.e. Apartments Trends, to identify multifamily properties and zone those properties to reflect the existing use, and approximate number of units and height, and floor to area ratio, with the goal of preserving existing housing by not triggering redevelopment.

b. Continue efforts to fine-tune the proposed “Preservation Incentive” for older multifamily to support the preservation of existing multifamily developments; consider providing a definition of “market-affordable” to use when calculating the number of units in existing market-affordable multifamily structures.

6. Increase Multi-Bedroom Housing to Benefit Families with Children and Other Multi-Generational Households
• Review a potential multi-bedroom requirement for the residential zones starting with R4 and provide a method to target these requirements in areas within ½ mile of our urban public schools.

I look forward to our discussions next week.

Policy Advisor
Office of Leslie Pool, Council Member District 7

Post Reply