Page 1 of 2 Land Development Code Advisory Group Meeting #62 June 12th 2017 at 6:00 pm‐9:00 pm Waller Creek Center, Room 104 625 E 10th Street Austin, TX 78701 www.austintexas.gov/codenext Charge to Advisory Group: Assist in public outreach and provide feedback on development and implementation of a revised land development code (Resolution #20121206‐074) and focus its efforts to ensure the CodeNEXT process supports all of the Priority Programs as outlined in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (Resolution #20150521‐026). AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. PUBLIC COMMENT (6:00‐6:15) 2. NEW BUSINESS (6:15‐8:55) a. Approval of Minutes b. Issue briefs for Final Report i. CAG reviews remaining issue briefs and polls support for each. ii. CAG report structure iii. Review charge to Advisory Group and Imagine Austin Priority Programs Poll c. Agenda Items for Final CAG meeting 7/5 (8:55‐9:00) ADJORNMENT For more information on CodeNEXT please visit: www.austintexas.gov/codenext To read and comment on the Draft Land Development Code visit: www.codenext.civicomment.org To see the Draft Proposed Zoning Map visit: www.codenext.engagingplans.org To sign up for Office Hours visit: www.tiny.cc/codenextofficehours Page 2 of 2 The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give at least 2 days notice before the meeting date. Please call Ashley Greenstein in the Planning and Zoning Department, at 512‐974‐2743, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Code Advisory Group, please contact Ashley Greenstein in the Planning and Zoning Department at 512‐974‐2743 or Ashley.Greenstein@AustinTexas.gov.
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKLAND Issue 7: Water quality protections need strengthening. (Lauren, Ele) Recommendations: 1. Reinstate the Environmental Commission’s right to an annual review of the Urban Watersheds Structure Control Plan as well as any new Suburban Watersheds Structure Control Plan. (Text) 2. Decrease the threshold for requiring water quality controls from 8,000 square feet of impervious cover, to 5,000 square feet, staff’s original recommendation. (Policy) 3. Bring forward the recently codified Impervious Cover Restrictions for Education Facilities found in § 25‐8‐366. (Text) Issue 8: Draft does not adequately protect rights of the public in privately owned, publicly accessible open space subject to public/private partnership agreements or other city consideration. (Rich) Recommendations: 1. Add to sections 23‐3B‐2030, 23‐4C‐1070 and elsewhere in the code as appropriate, the following language: “All privately owned, publicly accessible civic, open space, or parkland subject to 23‐3B‐2030 or similar provisions in the code shall afford the same rights and protections for free speech and assembly to residents as comparable publicly owned civic, open space, and parkland.” C. INFRASTRUCTURE Issue 9: Drainage and flooding provisions may be insufficient to address impacts of increased development. (Lauren, Ele) Recommendations: 1. Provide watershed capacity analysis for every watershed in the City to understand and account for the limitations of the modeling and to provide a baseline of actual current impervious cover that will inform our zoning map and maximum impervious cover requirements. (Map/Policy) 2. Prohibit fees‐in‐lieu when downstream drainage systems are at or exceeding capacity, eliminating staff discretion in such cases. This could be accomplished by a map, regularly updated with modeled data, to show areas where fees‐in‐lieu are prohibited. (Text) Issue 10: Draft does not adequately address connectivity and flooding improvements triggered by remodels. (P) (Lauren, Ele) Recommendations: 1. Create a remodeling threshold for providing public benefit improvements, including flooding mitigation, streetscape improvements and connectivity improvements (e.g. sidewalks and safe crossings). (Mobility Code Prescription Paper, page 17) 2. The scope of upgrade requirements or incentives should reflect the scope of the remodel project. 3. Consider severity of need for the upgrades based on mobility, flooding and infrastructure issues in the surrounding area. 4. Alternatively, incentivize removal of impervious cover and addition of trees and rain gardens, by allowing site disturbance over the standard threshold without triggering a full blown site plan. Issue 12: Redirect some savings from lower minimum parking requirements into area connectivity improvements. (Nuria) Recommendations: 1. Charge a …
