LDC Amendments

[Colleen Pate]

Colleagues,

I wanted to share the amendments I discussed at yesterday’s work session for Thursday’s meeting. Some of these amendments are subject to change, and I will share an update if that happens.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 143158.pdf

1.1800 Square Feet Minimum Lot Size: This amendment will adjust the minimum lot size from the Planning Commission recommendation of 1500 square feet to 1800 square feet. This number is around the average square footage required to subdivide three units on a 5,750-square-foot lot and is a balance between staff and Planning Commission's recommendation.

2. ETOD Partially Incorporated Lots: Currently, if an applicable property is partially in the ETOD overlay, the property is fully included within the ETOD. This amendment would state that if only a portion of a site is within the ETOD overlay it is subject to zoning at a later point.

3. Subdistrict Buffer Zones: Our community has had growing concerns regarding the density, especially at 120 feet, going a half-mile into the neighborhood. We must have a good balance of density along our transit corridors while also ensuring that we do not have what some consider as extreme height encroaching into neighborhoods. This would also ensure that projects up to 90 feet in height would utilize the ETOD density bonus versus DB90 since we are also incorporating redevelopment requirements within our ETOD areas. As advised by legal, this amendment creates subdistricts allowing 120 feet in height a quarter-mile away from a transit corridor and up to 90 feet in height a half-mile away from a transit corridor.

4. Compatibility for ETOD Project: Similar to what I’ve stated earlier, we’ve heard from the community regarding the impact of allowing height closer to their home. My amendment proposes a no-build area from 0-25 feet and 60 feet in height from 25-50 feet. Staff originally proposed going up to 90 feet in this area.

5. ETOD Annual Study: This amendment would add that staff would study ETOD's impacts and report back to the Council annually. This is consistent with the amendment I offered and was unanimously supported during HOME I to assure the Council gets data about the impacts of the decisions we’re making.

6. Compatibility Annual Study: This amendment would direct staff to study the impacts of compatibility and report back to the Council. Again, it will help us know the impacts of our decisions.

The amendment we discussed yesterday are being uploaded into backup this afternoon so the public can see the written form of what we discussed. If you have amendments that haven’t been submitted, please circulate them so they can be added to the backup today.

Thanks,
Kirk