1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION - VERSION 1 APRIL 23, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 25-2 TO ESTABLISH A NEW USE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: PART 1. Subsection (B) of City Code Section 25-2-4 (Commercial Uses Described) is amended to add a new use of “Electric Vehicle Charging” and to renumber the remaining uses accordingly: (25) ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING use is the use of a site for the charging of an electric vehicle, including battery charging stations and rapid charging stations, each as defined by the United States Department of Energy. PART 2. City Code Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C, Article 4, Division 2 (Commercial Uses) is amended to add a new Section 25-2-819 to read: § 25-2-819 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING USE. (A) This section applies to an electric vehicle charging use as a principal use. (B) This section does not apply to an electric vehicle charging use as an accessory use. (C) This section governs over a conflicting provision of this title or other ordinance unless the conflicting provision is more restrictive. (D) In this section: (1) a roadway description has the meaning assigned in Article 5 (Definitions) of Subchapter E; and (2) distance is measured from lot line to lot line. (E) Electric vehicle charging stations must be located at ground level or above. (F) Electric vehicle charging use is a permitted use on a site with a commercial or industrial base zoning district and: (1) an existing service station use; or (2) a discontinued service station use, if a subsequent use on the site did not include a restaurant (general) use, a restaurant (limited) use, or a residential use. Page 1 of 3 COA Law Department 4/18/2024 1:50 PM Electric Vehicle Charging WORKING DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION - VERSION 1 APRIL 23, 2024 (G) Subject to the requirements of Subsections (H), (I), and (J), electric vehicle charging use is a permitted or conditional use on a site zoned: (1) General Commercial Services (CS); (2) Commercial Liquor Sales (CS-1); (3) Commercial Highway (CH); (4) Industrial Park (IP); (5) Major Industry (MI); (6) Limited Industrial …
Compatibility 4/3/2024 Seventy-five feet trigger distance in excessive. It is out of the norm of peer cities. Fifty feet is plenty. Compatibility 4/3/2024 Public Input Public Input Compatibility 4/3/2024 Email Compatibility 4/3/2024 Public Input Compatibility 4/3/2024 Email I oppose the proposed amendments. These changes threaten to erode the unique character & heritage of our city by favoring developments that could push out long-term residents in pursuit of profit, fundamentally altering the fabric of our communities. Increasing height limits near residential areas disregards the importance of maintaining the aesthetic & historical integrity of our neighborhoods. Moreover, granting City Council the power to adjust these limits on a case-by-case basis opens the door to inconsistent decision-making, potentially influenced by developers' interests over those of the community. This approach undermines democratic principles, replacing clear, equitable rules with discretionary judgments. As Austin continues to grow, it's crucial that development policies prioritize preserving our city, protecting its residents, & ensuring that progress benefits the whole community equitably. We must demand transparency & fairness in our city’s planning processes. Hello, I have a question on the side-by-side comparison table between the current compatibilty code and the proposed changes. For height limits it sets 0 height for 25ft or less, which it also calls a compatibility buffer. But under the compaitibility buffer section, it says not required for certain cases (townhomes, small condo, and particularly residential-scale commercial). Just to be certain - does that exemption cancel out the 0ft height requirement within 25 feet? And if it does, what height requirement goes there instead. Hello, I have a comment on the compatibility code changes for noise from mechanical equipment. The 70dB of the current code is huge for today's standards. A new standard needs to be set - along the lines of "barely audible by a reasonable person at the triggering property". Or a number like like 50dB. Or even like "whichever satisfies" for the two! Somewhere along those lines. Also, much more needs to be said about rooftop machinery. That machinery should definitely be barely or non-audible. And solid screening that acts as an effective outward noise deflector should be specified for it. Also for rooftop machinery, it should be clarified if it's part of the building for max height requirement, or if it's on top the max height requirement (like an additional 5 foot allowance for instance). That's because the screening for it is "structure" …
EV Charging No. Commissione Reference Pg #/Section Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change References and Notes WG Vote Azhar Vote Cox Vote Haynes Vote Johnson Vote Maxwell Phillips Vote r Document # (if needed) Tally Vote 1 Cox pgs 2-3 Remove roadway (J) Electric vehicle charging use is a As electric vehicles 6/6 Yes Yes yes yes Yes Yes JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - VERSION 1 MARCH 29, 2024 classification restriction conditional use if the site: lower in price, the major for conditional use of (1) is zoned with a zoning district barrier to mass EV Charging. included in Subsection (G); and (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) Yes (2) front-faces or side-faces one of the following roadways: (a) a core transit corridor; (b) a future core transit corridor; (c) an urban roadway. adoption will be the lack of home charging for renters. In these scenarios it might be beneficial to have small EV charging sites along smaller roadways, subject to an approved CUP.
Compatibility No. 1 Commissione Reference Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change (Underline added text/Strikethrough Text Change References and Notes (if WG Vote Azhar Cox Vote Haynes Johnson Maxwell Phillips Johnson Draft Clarify existing language that Strike from lines 54-57: "less than 40 feet and the site is zoned:(1) Current language was vague - 5/6 Yes yes yes yes yes Included in Yes Pg 3 Ordinance v1 "compatibility" height limits do neighborhood office (NO);(2) limited office (LO); or(3) neighborhood I propose changing the not apply to zoning categories commercial (LR)" and replace with the words "40 feet or less." with a maximum height of up 40 feet (remove redundancy). language just to clarify that districts with a height limit equal to or less than 40 feet are exempt from compatibility height restrictions, and to simplify the text. 2 Johnson Draft 3-4 Clarify existing language Replace (B)(2) beginning on line 72 with: Yes Updated per 4/15 WG 5/6 Yes yes yes yes yes Ordinance v1 regarding which districts (2) A compatibility buffer is not required if the site is zoned: meeting compatibility buffers apply to. (a) neighborhood office (NO); 3 Johnson Draft 4 Reduce the width of a required Yes Updated on 4/16 - narrow lots 5/6 Yes yes Yes yes yes Ordinance v1 buffer on narrow lots (less than (D) Except as provided by Subsection (E) below or a site-specific can use a 15-foot buffer (with (b) limited office (LO); or (c) neighborhood commercial (LR). Replace lines 60-64 with the following: 75 feet wide), to a 15-foot wide amendment to this section, a structure that is located: an increased Screening Zone) Screening Zone; allow up to 35ft (1) at least 50 feet but less than 75 feet from a triggering property instead of the 25 ft buffer on of height next to the increased may not exceed 60 feet; and larger lots (10' screening/15' screening zone. (2) less than 50 feet from a triggering property may not exceed 40 restricted). Allow up to 35 ft (E) On lots less than 75 feet wide (as measured from the triggering requirements by ~50% in 15' property line(s)), a structure that is located: screening zone - additional (1) at least 50 feet but less than 75 feet from a triggering property small tree, additional 5 shrubs. next to screening zone on narrow lots. Increase planting (2) at least 25 feet but less than 50 feet …
HOME PHASE 2 No. Commissione # 4 Reference Pg #/ Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change (Underline added text/Strikethrough References and Notes (if WG Vote Azhar Vote Cox Vote Haynes Vote Johnson Vote Maxwell Phillips Vote r Document Section deleted text) needed) Tally Vote Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) 1 Johnson Draft Remove setbacks for "internal" lot Modify 25-2-779(F)(4) with the following: Yes MODIFIED 4/19 to put 6/6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ordinance lines (aka setbacks between new v1 lots created from a replat), maintain (4) Except as provided in Subdivisions (5) and (6) , the following 5 foot setback from original side setbacks apply... and rear property lines. Replace 25-2-779(F)(5) with the following: front and side street setbacks into a separate amendment 2 Johnson Draft 4 Reduce the minimum lot width to Yes MODIFIED 4/19 to 15 5/6 Yes Yes No - I want to Yes Yes Yes Ordinance 15 feet. least 20 15 feet wide." v1 feet - compromise to still allow townhouses and other attached units without being overly wide. Prohibition on driveway access for small frontages remains untouched. MODIFIED 4/19 - clarified 4/6 go to 30 but not doing an amendment b/c I know support is not there. 3 Johnson Draft 4 Allow for "back lots" to be created Direct staff to propose a mechanism for the creation of lots that do Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Ordinance without frontage on a public street, not have street frontage, as long as they have adequate room for to be direction to v1 as long as they have utility and utilities, first responder and physical access guaranteed by staff/less prescriptive physical access via a permanent permanent easement, and meet other required lot standards (i.e. easement shown on the width, area). One potential approach is described below, using the subdivision. term "back lots." Houston, Charlottesville VA, Cleveland OH, and (5) The minimum setback from any property line directly abutting another small lot residential use on property zoned SF-3 or more restrictive is zero. (6) Except for a side-street setback, when an attached dwelling unit abuts a property line, the minimum setback for that property line is zero." Modify line 82 to read: "(2) Except for a flag lot, a lot must be at numerous other cities have a similar mechanism under different names (sub lots, townhouse lots, etc). Insert new subsection (10) under 25-1-21 (Definitions) and …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-2023-0109 – 4323 South Congress Ave. DISTRICT: 3 ADDRESS: 4321 ½, 4323 ½, 4323 and 4329 S Congress Avenue ZONING FROM/TO: LI-PDA-NP, to change conditions of zoning, including the maximum height, maximum number of dwelling units and maximum floor-to-area ratio (FAR) SITE AREA: 9.337 acres PROPERTY OWNER: SE Austin Global Land, LLC AGENT: Drenner Group, PC (Leah M. Bojo) CASE MANAGER: Nancy Estrada (512-974-7617, nancy.estrada@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff recommendation is to grant an amendment to limited industrial services – planned development area – neighborhood plan (LI-PDA-NP) combining district zoning. The amendment would allow a maximum floor-to-area (FAR) ratio increase of 1.5:1 to 1.75:1, a maximum height increase from 60 feet to 90 feet, an increase to the number of residential units from 400 units to 620 units, and an increase in the number of residential units per acre from 42.2968 to 66.4025 as shown in Attachment A, the proposed revised ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: April 23, 2024: March 26, 2024: Approved a POSTPONEMENT REQUEST by the neighborhood to April 23, 2024 [A. AZHAR; F. MAXWELL – 2nd] (10-0), G. ANDERSON, P. HOWARD, A. PHILLIPS – ABSENT CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES: 1 of 2123 C14-2023-0109 - 4323 S Congress Avenue; District 3 C14-2023-0109 Page 2 CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject rezoning area is approximately 9.33 acres and is located at the southeast corner of South Congress Avenue and Industrial Boulevard, just south of East Ben White Boulevard. Development in this area is generally characterized by warehouses containing distribution and supply companies, fabrication companies, construction sales and service businesses, and outside storage uses (LI-NP; LI-CO-NP; LI-PDA-NP). Please refer to Exhibits A (Zoning Map), A-1 (Aerial View). Currently the property is developed with two multifamily residential buildings and the readapted Saint Elmo Public Market. There are 387 units within the existing multifamily buildings with the associated parking garage. The public market is within an existing warehouse building that is approximately 48,000 square feet and contains a cocktail lounge, bowling alley, and outdoor patio uses. As set forth in Land Development Code Section 25-2-441, the regulations of a planned development area (PDA) may modify: 1) permitted or conditional uses authorized by the base zoning district, 2) site development regulations except for compatibility standards, and 3) off-street parking or loading regulations, sign regulations or screening regulations applicable in the base district. The Applicant is proposing …
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION REVIEW SHEET DISTRICT: 10 CASE: C14-96-0127(RCT) – 5209 S. Pleasant Valley ADDRESS: 5209, 5205, 5303 South Pleasant Valley Road and 5302 Woodland Oaks Court EXISTING ZONING: GO-NP SITE AREA: 2.3269 acres PROPERTY OWNER: Austin Travis County Youth Services, Inc. (Robert Martinez) AGENT: Drenner Group, PC (Leah M. Bojo) CASE MANAGER: Nancy Estrada (512-974-7617, nancy.estrada@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends granting a Termination of the Restrictive Covenant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: April 23, 2024: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT TERMINATION RECORDING NUMBER: ISSUES: None at this time. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The proposed Restrictive Covenant Termination area is comprised of approximately 2.33 acres and is located east of South Pleasant Valley Road between Terri Road and East Stassney Lane. The subject area was rezoned from the family residence (SF-3) district to the general office (GO) district in 1997. It is currently developed as a youth center. The rezoning case included a public Restrictive Covenant that specified that if use of the Property as “GO” General Office district is discontinued for 90 consecutive days, the Owner of the Property will not object to the City of Austin rezoning the property to “SF-3” Family Residence district as defined in Chapter 13-2 of the City Code. C14-96-0127(RCT) Page 2 Please refer to Exhibits A (Zoning Map), A-1 (Aerial View) and B (1997 Rezoning Ordinance and Restrictive Covenant). The Applicant proposes to terminate the Restrictive Covenant in order to allow for multifamily residential development under the Affordability Unlocked program. Currently, the applicant has both S.M.A.R.T. Housing and Affordability Unlocked applications in staff review with the Housing Department. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Termination request. Currently there is multifamily residence-low density (MF-2) zoning adjacent to the south of this property as well as to the southeast. Multifamily residence-limited density (MF-1) zoning is also located directly to the west across South Pleasant Valley Road. This area is supported by public transit with Capital Metro bus routes/stops along South Pleasant Valley Road, East Stassney Lane and Terri Road. These are all major arterials that are a part of the ASMP Transit Priority Network. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: ZONING GO-CO Site North SF-3-NP South MF-2-NP; LR-NP East SF-3-NP; MF-2-NP West MF-1-NP; SF-3-NP; LR-NP LAND USES Youth Center Single family residential Multifamily residential; Service station; Commercial uses Single family residential; Multifamily residential Multifamily residential; Single family residential; Restaurant; NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: Southeast Combined (Franklin Park) WATERSHEDS: …
April 11, 2024 Austin City Council and Planning Commission 301 W. Second Street Austin, TX 78701 Re: Amendment C20-2023-021 - Electric Vehicle Charging Land Use EVgo welcomes the opportunity to provide input on the recommendations and draft ordinance to establish electric vehicle (EV) charging as a use within the City of Austin land development code. As one of the nation’s largest public fast charging providers, EVgo has over a decade of experience building, owning, and operating fast charging stations across the country.1 The City of Austin has positioned itself as a leader in vehicle electrification, setting an ambitious and achievable goal to electrify 40 percent of all vehicle miles traveled by 2030, including full electrification of private gig, rideshare, delivery, and public health vehicles.2 Achieving this goal will require a significant increase in public EV charging infrastructure over the next decade. To date, many public EV charging installations have been accessory to existing establishments like grocery stores, malls, or offices, allowing drivers to charge at the places they already frequent. However, growing demand for charging will require a variety of site types and use cases, including larger charging sites where EV charging is intended as a primary use of a property. Standalone charging facilities are essential to meeting growing citywide demand for charging and ensuring an equitable transition to electric vehicles. These larger sites not only accommodate increased charging needs by residents and light-duty fleets but also provide a critical charging solution for Austinites without access to at-home charging. We commend Council and staff for their leadership on this effort, and support the key recommendations put forth in the draft ordinance. EVgo offers the following feedback, anchored by national best practices, to build on staff’s recommendations and ensure an effective ordinance that enables rapid, equitable deployment of EV charging throughout the city. 1. Define EV charging as both a primary and accessory use. EVgo supports staff’s recommendation to define EV charging as its own primary use into the land development code, rather than incorporating EV charging under existing categories for parking or gas stations. While this ordinance intends to establish charging as a primary use, staff should also consider defining EV charging as a permitted accessory use in parking lots across the city for consistency. This would codify existing practice and ensure site hosts retain flexibility to offer charging on their properties. 1 https://site-assets.evgo.com/f/78437/x/80120e2978/connect-the-watts_local-zoning-codes-best-practices.pdf 2 See transportation electrification strategies: City …
HOME Phase 2, Compatibility, and EV Charging Code Amendments Planning Commission April 23, 2024 April 23, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Electric Vehicle Charging Use HOME Phase 2 (Smaller Lot Size for One Unit) Citywide Compatibility Changes Note: Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay will be considered at the April 30, 2024, Planning Commission meeting 2 Public Hearings & Engagement Additional Open Houses May 6, 2024 (West Austin) May 8, 2024 (East Austin) Joint City Council & Planning Commission Meeting April 11, 2024 Open Houses April 17, 2024 + April 20, 2024 (Virtual) Planning Commission Meetings April 23, 2024 + April 30, 2024 City Council Meeting May 16, 2024 3 Engagement Channels Mailed Notice and Media – Purple Postcard – ETOD Notice – News Coverage – Social Media – Advertising Website, Email, and Phone Open Houses 4 Engagement by the Numbers (as of 4/22) Notices mailed out: 671,912 + 39,084 (ETOD) Visitors to www.SpeakUpAustin.org/TransitLDC: 4,990+ Phone calls/emails: 202+ Comments on speakupaustin.org: 150+ Speakers at April 11 Joint Meeting: 181 (115 in favor, 58 against, 8 neutral) Attendees at 4/17 In-Person Open House: 88+ Attendees at 4/20 Virtual Open House: 75+ 5 Additional Open Houses May 6, 2024 6-8 PM Anderson High School 8403 Mesa Drive May 8, 2024 6-8 PM George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center 1165 Angelina Street 6 EV Charging Use – Clarifications EV Charging Use prohibited underground because: – EV vehicle fires generate a great deal of smoke and burn very hot. Underground prohibition will assist with smoke removal should an incident occur. – Smoke removal could take days if the EV incident is below the first level below grade, and any access to the garage or vehicles in the garage would be prohibited during that time. No changes to EV Charging as part of accessory parking – The proposed regulations only apply when EV Charging is the principal use on the site. 7 HOME Phase 2– Clarifications 45% Impervious Cover Requirement – The 45% impervious cover limit helps ensure there is space for rainwater to be absorbed or directed to a storm drainage system so it does not negatively affect neighboring properties. – In residential subdivisions, drainage systems are designed assuming 45% impervious cover for residential lots. Emergency Access – The current practice of requiring a fire lane …
Submitted by Commissioner Anderson – Compatibility Amendments Units less than 20’ wide are allowed a parking structure no more than 10’ wide. Anderson 1: Anderson 2: Anderson 3: Anderson 4: Compatibility does not go beyond 50’ for any development with income restricted housing. Exclude multifamily residential use up to 16 units from compatibility buffers. 25-2-779 (4)(b) The minimum side setback is: (i) five feet; or (ii) zero feet for the portion of the lot that provides street access; or (iii) zero feet for a side lot line is shared with a lot containing a Small Lot Single- Family Residential use. (4)(c) The minimum front setback is: (i) fifteen feet; or [edit proposed by other amendments] (ii) five feet if the lot is a flag lot; or (iii) zero feet if the lot is a flag lot and the front lot line is shared with a lot containing a Small Lot Single-Family Resdiential Use. (4)(d) The minimum rear setback is: (i) five feet; or (ii) zero feet for a side lot line is shared with a lot containing a Small Lot Single- Family Residential use. (5) Except for a side-street setback, when an attached dwelling unit abuts a property line, the minimum setback for that property line is zero. For setbacks permitted by this section to be less than 5 feet, the fire-resistant construction standards based on fire separation distance in the applicable building and fire technical codes are required.
Compatibility Amendments Submitted by Commission Haynes H1 - General; The COA shall develop a plain-language summary of the Compatibility regulations, applications, and impacts and make the summary prominently available on the City’s website pages related to building applications and permits, City libraries and community centers, development offices, City Clerk's office, and City Hall 30 days prior to final implementation. The COA shall also make the document available to all ISD libraries, neighborhood contact teams, neighborhood associations, home-owners associations, social justice organizations, and civic and community groups that request a copy. H3 - General; For a minimum of one year after final implementation of Compatibility regulations, COA staff shall prioritize meetings with neighborhood contact teams, neighborhood associations, home-owners associations, social justice organizations, and civic and community groups to offer plain-language summaries and detailed descriptions of the application, permitting and platting requirements, financial incentive programs, and other pertinent information.
Submitted by Commissioner Haynes - HOME 2 Amendments H1 - General; The COA shall develop a form and maintain a list of entities who would like to receive electronic notice only of an application to subdivide a property under HOME2 provisions, such as, but not limited to, builder associations, grassroots urbanist organizations, neighborhood contact teams, housing advocates, social justice organizations, environmental groups, home-owners associations, neighborhood associations, conservation organizations, transportation advocates, civic and community groups, and concerned citizens. The City may charge a one-time application fee for all groups, not to exceed $5, to facilitate the development and maintenance of the data. H2 - General; The COA shall develop a plain-language summary of the HOME2 regulations, application, and impacts and make the summary prominently available on the CIty's website pages related to building applications and permits, City libraries and community centers, development offices, City Clerk's office, and City Hall 30 days prior to final implementation. The COA shall also make the document available to all ISD libraries, neighborhood contact teams, neighborhood associations, home-owners associations, social justice organizations, and civic and community groups that request a copy. H3 - General; For a minimum of one year after final implementation of HOME2 regulations, COA staff shall prioritize meetings with neighborhood contact teams, neighborhood associations, home-owners associations, social justice organizations, and civic and community groups to offer plain-language summaries and detailed descriptions of the application, permitting and platting requirements, financial incentive programs, and other pertinent information. H4 - General; The City's permitting and development offices shall accept and record copies of any duly recorded deed filed with the State of Texas or County of Hays, Travis, or Williamson noting any covenant, easement, historic designation, or private land use agreement related to properties within the corporate limits of Austin. H5 - General; The COA shall notify an applicant and property owners located within 500 feet of the proposed property of information pertaining, but not limited, to historic designations, conservation and utility easements, conditional overlay, and other public or private land use agreements that may impact the subdivision of a previously platted property.
Amendment No. Item (HOME Phase 2, Compatibility, EV Charging, OR ETOD Overlay) Commissioner Proposing Amendment 1 EV Maxwell Reference Document Pg #/Section # of document Proposed Amendment Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) References and Notes (if needed) 2 Compatibility Maxwell Draft Ordinance V2 Page 3 of 5 - § 25-2-1062 (B) Draft Ordinance V1 Page 1 of 3 - § 25-2-819 (E) Electric vehicle charging stations maybe located at one level below ground. Reduce the compatibility buffer requirements for residential structures that are 40 feet or less in height even in mixed use zones and higher density multifamily zones. Renumber the sections accordingly. N/A N/A Yes Yes Proposed Text Change, IF necessary (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) (E) Electric vehicle charging stations must be located at one (1) level below ground, ground level or above. (4) The minimum width of a compatibility buffer is 15 feet for a structure that is 40 feet or less and the site is zoned: (a) Multifamily—High Density (MF-5); (b) Multifamily—Highest Density (MF-6); (c) Mixed Use Combining District (MU); (d) Planned Development Area (PDA); (e) Vertical Mixed Use Building (V); or (f) Density Bonus 90 (DB90).
Amendment No. Item (HOME Phase 2, Compatibility, EV Charging, OR ETOD Overlay) Reference Document Proposed Amendment Pg #/Section # of document Proposed Text Change, IF necessary (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) Commissioner Proposing Amendment References and Notes (if needed) 1 HOME Phase 2 Danielle Skidmore HOME 2: 1 Unit Regulations & 4 Flag Lots draft ordinance Reduce minimum front setback requirements to 10 feet for small lots (F)(4)(c)(i) 15 10 feet, into which a covered porch that is open on three sides may project five feet YES under 5,750 sq ft.
Amen Item (HOME Commissioner Reference Pg #/Section Proposed Amendment Proposed Text Change, IF necessary (Underline added References and Notes (if needed) dment Phase 2, Proposing Document # of No. Compatibility Amendment document text/Strikethrough deleted text) Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) 2 2 2 2 , EV Charging, OR ETOD Overlay) 1 HOME Phase Azhar Draft Access Requirements for Driveways: Page 6 of 11 - § 25-2-779 Ordinance Only lots that are less than 20 feet wide V2 (L)(1) must be required to only take vehicular 2 HOME Phase Azhar Draft access off of an improved alley, from a side street, or through a joint-use driveway with adjoining lots. Impervious Cover and Lot Area: Ensure Page 5 of 11 - § 25-2- Ordinance that there is no change to impervious V2 779(H)(1) cover requirements and how lot area is and Page 1 of 11 - § 25-1- 22 measured from existing LDC requirements. When making changes to § 25-1-22, renumber accordingly. 3 HOME Phase Azhar Draft Minimum Lot Size: A lot must be at least Page 4 of 11 - § 25-2-779 Ordinance 1,800 square feet but less than 5,750 V2 (F)(1) square feet. In addition, explore options for lot sizes reduced down to 1,500 square feet. Ordinance Recommenda preservation program for HOME Phase 2 V2 tion and align with the existing preservation program from Phase 1. The Phase 2 bonus program must utilize incentives such as small lot sizes and other elements to achieve the original goal. For both Phase 1 and 2 programs, preserve Council's intent of granting 0.65 FAR for three units on a site, while maintaining a 0.4 FAR cap on each individual new unit. No This will allow greater flexibility in subdividing two side-by-side lots from a lot with 50 feet existing width and allow for greater flexibility for flag lots. Yes This would ensure that there are no changes to maximum impervious cover requirements and how lot area is measured from current LDC (A) Lot [For MF-1 and less restrictive, lot] [Lot] area is the net horizontal requirements, regardless of zone or area within the lot lines, excluding the portion of the lot that: use. § 25-2-779(H)(1) - The maximum impervious cover is [45 percent] the maximum allowed in the base zoning district regulations. § 25-1-22 MEASUREMENTS (1) [that] provides street access, if the lot is a flag lot; or (2) [that] is located …
From: Paul Robbins Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:30 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@aus�ntexas.gov> Subject: The Home Ordinance and Floods You don't often get email from paul_robbins@greenbuilder.com. Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Members of the Planning Commission: I am alarmed at flooding that might occur because of the proposed HOME ordinance. If I understand the ordinance correctly, it will affect impervious cover in 2 ways. First, it will encourage increased buildout and impervious cover on existing lots. Second, it will allow increased impervious cover on small lots. Austin is in "flash-flood alley." Torrential rains that sometimes fall here endanger about 24,000 Austin properties in flood plains. Increasing impervious cover will only enlarge these flood plains. HOME will also create more lot-to-lot flooding caused by new buildings on lots with poor drainage. I personally know people in Austin whose homes have been flooded because of drainage uphill from them. You cannot argue with a flood. Ignoring this danger for the sake of increased density will trade one problem for another. Sincerely, Paul Robbins 7405 Callbram LN Austin, TX 78736
Name of Speaker (Required) Ron Thrower Adam Greenfield Tom Ashley Jewels Cain Robin Rather Christopher Page Christopher Page Sterling King Rita Thompso Peter Breton Jason John Paul Haskins Michael Waddell Chris Gannon Iliana Medrano Eric Paulus Nyeka Arnold Lauren Ross Celine Rendon Carmen Llanes Karen Wolffe Sarah Herzer Sol Praxis Scott Turner Miranda Best Campos Susana Almanza Valerita Menard Pedro E Hernandez, Jr Adrian Macias Cassandra Sodergren Alexia Leclercq Carlos Pinon Marian Sanchez Tai Hovanky Cedar Stevens Eric Pace Linda Cangelosi Ana Romero Irene Pickhardt Shane Johnson Antonia Romero Barbara McArthur Iliana Medrano Richard Heyman Janis Reinken Carolyn Croom Jessica Braun Julie Woods Bethany Carson Noé Elias Monica Guzmán Misael Ramos Michael Waddell Felix De Portu Yasmine Smith Zach Faddis Ki Gray Cyrus Tehrani Brad Massingill Sharad Mudhol Brita Wallace Elle Allen Cody Carr Matthew Atkinson Traci Kelley Jenny Grayson Pamela Bell Montana McNaughton Sara Smith Homer Parsegian Bill McCamley Blair McKay Lauren Hartnett
April 23, 2024 Via Electronic Submittal Re: Amended zoning request for rezoning application C14-2024-0024 Dear Mrs. Hadri: As representatives of the developer of the property, we respectfully propose to amend the zoning conditional overlay request for application C14-2024-0024 to add the following uses as prohibited. This request is in addition to the originally requested conditional overlay of limiting the maximum height to 60’. If you have any questions regarding this request or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, Mrs. Cynthia Hadri City of Austin Planning Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, TX 78752 ● Bail Bond services ● Pawn Shop ● Liquor Sales ● Cocktail Lounge ● Outdoor Entertainment Amanda Couch Brown 214-695-9219 | AMANDA.BROWN@HDBROWNCONSULTING.COM | HDBROWNCONSULTING.COM
Amendment Item (HOME Phase Commissione Reference Pg #/Section Proposed Amendment No. 2, Compatibility, r Proposing Document # of EV Charging, OR Amendment document ETOD Overlay) HOME Phase 2 Barrera- Ramirez General Recommendat Low- & Middle-Income Homeowner Access to Financing Opportunities: Provide creative financing opportunities, ion like forgivable loans, for low- and middle- income Proposed Text Change, IF Text Change Included in Amendment (YES/NO) necessary (Underline added text/Strikethrough deleted text) References and Notes (if needed) HOME Phase 3 Barrera- Ramirez General Recommendat ion HOME Phase 4 Barrera- Ramirez General Recommendat Preservation of Homeownership for Low-Income Homeowners: Adopt strategies and fund programs to ion provide options for homeowners at risk of displacement homeowners who would like to build units on their lots as long as rented units are income-restricted at 50% MFI or below and accepts Section 8 vouchers, and units for ownership are 60% MFI or below. Make ADUs more accessible: Allow manufactured housing to be permissible as an ADU provided it meets standards for safety and climate resistance to make ADU’s accessible for low- and middle-income residents in our neighborhoods and seek opportunities to streamline permitting and provide permitting assistance income restricted at 80% MFI or below. due to property tax increases. Identify funding sources to compensate homeowners to participate in Community Land Trusts run by outside nonprofits. Offer tax abatement for homeowners at or below 50% MFI.
