City of Austin Land Development Code Amendments Spring 2024

Questions

No. Requestor ReceivedCategory Question Status Answer
1 Johnson 04/02/2024 Compatibility Standards
Why did staff choose to continue requiring a 25' wide no-build zone instead of reducing that size?
Posted
Adding allowances for low-intensity uses, such as trails and driveways, within the Restricted Zone increases the developable area for other uses, including housing, on the rest of the site while maintaining the spatial separation between taller, more intensive uses and single-family homes. A 25'-wide buffer also allows for vegetative screening including trees that can reach at least 20' in height at maturity. This vegetation can help reduce the urban heat island effect, retain stormwater, improve air quality, and provide other environmental benefits. According to the City’s Arborist, a narrower buffer may not allow enough sunlight and space for trees to grow.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:29 AM
2 Johnson 04/02/2024 Compatibility Standards
Has staff considered renaming Article 10 and the standards it contains to something other than "compatibility," such as "Transitions" or "Buffers?" The term compatibility implies that the regulated uses are otherwise incompatible, and has been associated with lots of controversy in Austin's regulatory history.
Posted
Staff does not recommend renaming Article 10. “Compatibility” is also referenced in other sections of the code, including Density Bonus 90 (DB90), and these standards are widely known to the community as “compatibility standards.” Renaming them could lead to some unintended consequences.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:40 AM
3 Johnson 04/02/2024 Compatibility Standards
Has staff analyzed the viability of required planting density of small trees and shrubs in the compatibility buffer? Has an arborist reviewed these proposed standards to ensure that the required plantings would actually be able to grow at that density?
Posted
Yes, staff consulted with the City Arborist and Environmental Reviewers when developing the planting requirements to ensure the requirements are viable.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:40 AM
4 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Why did staff propose using two separate overlay zone strings (ETOD and DBETOD) instead of one, if they are always mapped onto the same parcels? This approach seems unnecessarily cumbersome and confusing.
Posted
City staff determined that from a regulatory perspective it was necessary to separate ETOD/DBETOD in the zoning string as they have two separate and distinct regulatory functions. The ETOD combining district modifies a base zoning district’s regulations, imposing additional use restrictions that apply to all ETOD combining district properties regardless of participation in a voluntary density bonus program. All aspects related to the voluntary density bonus program are separated into a second district, DBETOD. Including both -ETOD and -DBETOD in the zoning string will more transparently reflect regulations for subject tracts by indicating Council’s decision to include use restrictions on each property while also specifically indicating the property’s eligibility to participate in the density bonus program.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:41 AM
5 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Did staff analyze the impact of required replacement of commercial spaces on the ability of development projects to "pencil out?" If so, what were the findings?
Posted
Staff did not model the economic impact of including protections for commercial spaces when non-residential properties redevelop using the provisions of DBETOD. This provision was included in the staff proposal after coordination with the Economic Development Department and is intended to address concerns about the potential displacement of priority businesses, in line with the goals of the ETOD Policy Plan. Additional analysis of this impact will be considered in future phases of ETOD Overlay work.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:41 AM
6 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
How did staff come up with the maximum height limit of 120 feet for DBETOD? It seems that we should not limit height, or certainly not limit it that low, nearest our high-capacity transit stations. What justification is there for 120' when other regulating plan districts (many of which are also near current or planned mass transit) allows heights up to more than 400 feet?
Posted
Council direction to staff in Resolution No. 20240201-054 was to allow "developments participating in the density bonus program to…exceed the maximum building height in their base zoning district by up to 60 additional feet for a maximum height of up to 120 total feet in height." Council also directed staff to "consider a bonus option above 120 feet in total height, where appropriate." As the staff report explains, additional heights above 120 feet will be best considered through consultant calibration efforts in the next phase of ETOD Overlay work.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:43 AM
7 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
In (H) Compatibility Requirements, can staff clarify whether the 90 foot height limit for "A structure that is located less than 50 feet from a triggering property" applies to the entire structure, or only that portion that lies within 50 feet of the triggering property?
Posted
Council direction to staff in Resolution No. 20240201-054 was to allow "developments participating in the density bonus program to…exceed the maximum building height in their base zoning district by up to 60 additional feet for a maximum height of up to 120 total feet in height." Council also directed staff to "consider a bonus option above 120 feet in total height, where appropriate." As the staff report (https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=425943) explains, additional heights above 120 feet will be best considered through consultant calibration efforts in the next phase of ETOD Overlay work. The draft ETOD Overlay ordinance allows for modified compatibility provisions for DBETOD projects that meet all the requirements. Only the portion of any structure that is more than 25 feet but less than 50 feet in distance from a triggering property would be limited to 90 feet in height. At 50 feet in distance and beyond from a triggering property, a building could reach its maximum height (120 feet or less). This could result in a single building with more stories farther from a triggering property and fewer stories closer to a triggering property.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:43 AM
8 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Why did staff decide not to allow residential uses in commercial zones using the base ETOD overlay, instead allowing these uses only in the DBETOD bonus program?
Posted
Allowing residential uses in commercial zones would be considered an increase of entitlements, and thus would be more appropriate for a bonus program rather than a combining district that limits uses. Therefore, staff included the allowance for residential uses in all base zones as a provision in the DBETOD combining district so that this increase in entitlements can be granted only for developments that provide the community benefits in the DBETOD program.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:43 AM
9 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Has staff considered implementing parking maximums in the ETOD combining district?
Posted
Staff did not consider parking maximums for the current phase of the ETOD Overlay, but this is an issue to consider in future phases. Staff anticipates bringing a proposal for a systemwide ETOD Overlay back to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration in spring 2025. Future phases of the ETOD Overlay will be developed with additional analysis and calibration that couldn't be completed this spring.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:44 AM
10 Johnson 04/02/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
How did staff determine the proposed % required affordable housing ratios in the DBETOD bonus system? These numbers are notably higher than almost any other bonus system in use in Austin.
Posted
The percentages of required affordable housing in DBETOD were based on two Council-approved density bonus programs. The ownership percentage (12% of total units at 80% MFI) was designed to mirror the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) bonus program requirement. Because ownership projects in bonus programs are rare today, staff did not increase the DBETOD requirement beyond the DB90 requirement. Further calibration planned in future phases of the ETOD Overlay work will help determine if the requirement should be increased beyond that of DB90. The DBETOD rental percentages (12% of total units at 50% MFI and 15% of total units at 60% MFI) are the same as those that Council previously adopted under the VMU2 program for properties near light rail transit.

There are some other existing bonus programs that require a higher percentage of units to be set aside as income-restricted than the DBETOD staff proposal; for example, in the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO), applicants must provide at least 20% of their total units or bedrooms as income-restricted units in the 50% to 60% MFI range to access the height bonus available in the UNO program. The Plaza Saltillo TOD bonus program also has a "super bonus" that requires 25% of units at 60% MFI.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:44 AM
11 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Why does the staff draft not follow council's explicit direction in Resolution No. 20230720-126 (initiating HOME amendments) to "allow up to three dwelling units on smaller lots that are created by subdividing a single-family lot; and will allow two or more dwelling units to be constructed on a single-family lot," instead proposing to allow only one unit on a smaller lot? Doing so clearly contradicts the goal of enabling lower-priced housing in neighborhoods, and eliminates the possibility of housing types such as cottage courts.
Posted
City staff is complying with Resolution No. 20230720-126 (initiating HOME amendments) which directs the City Manager to bring Land Development Code amendments initiated by the resolution as they are ready.

A January 2024 staff memo provided Council with the staff’s work plan to bring forward LDC amendments and how the amendments would be prioritized () The memo noted that staff was prioritizing their efforts this spring on code amendments that are critical to support Equitable Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) implementation along the Project Connect Phase 1 Light Rail line, including Priority Extensions, while also continuing to address housing capacity and affordability citywide. To be able to deliver this package of code amendments by the end of May 2024, staff is focusing on amendments to reduce the current minimum lot size of 5,750 sq ft for one residential unit. The other development typologies listed will be included in future code amendments.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:51 AM
12 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Why did staff not propose increasing allowed impervious cover on SF-2 and SF-3 lots? This is often the greatest limiting factor on the ability to develop sustainable, sprawl-reducing infill housing on urban lots.
Posted
Austin has significant drainage challenges because it is in Flash Flood Alley, an area that produces extreme rainfall and has steep slopes and slow-draining soils. A 45% impervious cover threshold helps ensure there is space for runoff to be directed to a storm drainage system and not negatively affect neighboring properties. The more room taken up with buildings and hard surfaces, the more likely lot-to-lot drainage challenges become. Additionally, drainage systems for our residential subdivisions are designed assuming 45% impervious cover for residential lots. This means that the drainage system including inlets, pipes, and detention pond sizing are designed for this level of runoff.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:56 AM
13 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What rationale can staff provide for choosing 2,000 square feet as the minimum lot size, instead of no minimum lot size at all, or even a smaller number? Given that the cost of land forms the bulk of the cost of a house, doesn't this simply eliminate the possibility of less expensive housing than what is possible on a 2,000 sq ft lot?
Posted
As stated in the staff report, staff’s intent was to match, to the greatest extent possible, the density allowed under HOME Phase 1. Staff studied existing lot sizes and widths across city and, with the proposed 2,000 sq ft minimum lot size, most lots will be able to subdivide into at least two or three lots. The 2,000 sq ft minimum lot size also allows for a feasible building footprint at the proposed 45% impervious cover limit.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:50 AM
14 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What rationale can staff provide for setting 20 feet as the minimum width of an attached housing lot? Cities around America and the world (and even in Austin's Mueller development) have many attached townhouses smaller than this, with 15' often being a standard width.
Posted
Proposed changes to lot width minimums take into account the space needed for driveways, access, and utilities. Lot width standards, which vary based on the type of access, work in combination with design standards to provide open space along the street, such as space for trees, reduce the impact of driveways, preserve curb space for street parking and trash collection, and promote pedestrian-oriented building design.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:51 AM
15 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Given that the initiating resolution explicitly mentioned fourplexes, why does the proposed HOME phase II ordinance not include allowing four-unit residential uses on all lots, or at the very least lots meeting the current lot size minimum
Posted
City staff is complying with Resolution No. 20230720-126 (initiating HOME amendments) which directs the City Manager to bring Land Development Code amendments initiated by the resolution as they are ready.

A January 2024 staff memo provided Council with the staff’s work plan to bring forward LDC amendments and how the amendments would be prioritized () The memo noted that staff was prioritizing their efforts this spring on code amendments that are critical to support Equitable Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) implementation along the Project Connect Phase 1 Light Rail line, including Priority Extensions, while also continuing to address housing capacity and affordability citywide. To be able to deliver this package of code amendments by the end of May 2024, staff is focusing on amendments to reduce the current minimum lot size of 5,750 sq ft for one residential unit. The other development typologies listed will be included in future code amendments.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:51 AM
16 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What justification can staff provide for the minimum lot size of 5,750 SF for two- and three-unit uses, other than that this happens to be the number in current code? Can staff provide evidence that this is in fact the "correct" or optimal size of a lot for these uses?
Posted
City staff is complying with Resolution No. 20230720-126 (initiating HOME amendments) which directs the City Manager to bring Land Development Code amendments initiated by the resolution as they are ready.

A January 2024 staff memo provided Council with the staff’s work plan to bring forward LDC amendments and how the amendments would be prioritized () The memo noted that staff was prioritizing their efforts this spring on code amendments that are critical to support Equitable Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) implementation along the Project Connect Phase 1 Light Rail line, including Priority Extensions, while also continuing to address housing capacity and affordability citywide. To be able to deliver this package of code amendments by the end of May 2024, staff is focusing on amendments to reduce the current minimum lot size of 5,750 sq ft for one residential unit. The other development typologies listed will be included in future code amendments.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:51 AM
17 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Why does the draft ordinance continue to require lots front a public ROW (with a flag or full-size front lot line)? Allowing for lots that do not front a street (instead providing access solely via permanent easement) would simplify subdivision, and allow lots with existing structures intended to be preserved to be more flexible and easily developed. The city of Houston utilizes this approach, as do many other cities in other states (such as "sublots" in Charlottesville's new code).
Posted
Current City of Austin practices and regulations generally discourage the creation of landlocked parcels that must be accessed through easements. Modifications to this practice would require more extensive technical discussion and review.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:52 AM
18 Johnson 04/02/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What rationale can staff provide for requiring a 5-foot side setback on small lot single-family residential uses? A smaller setback would provide sufficient access and separation while providing more flexibility in site layout and design.
Posted
The proposed side setbacks match the existing standards while allowing for the reduction to a 0-foot setback adjacent to the "flagpole" of a flag lot and for attached units. A side setback of less than 5 feet for detached units may result in a building separation of less than 10 feet between a new home and an existing home on an adjacent lot. This would result in increased fire-rating requirements that the existing home may not meet.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:52 AM
19 Haynes 04/04/2024 Electric Vehicle Charging
Will there be a plain language summary developed before the open house so the average citizen can understand the intent of the proposal before it is considered?
Posted
Staff provided a presentation about the LDC amendments at the April 11 Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission. The April 11 presentation is intended to be informative and understandable for both the Commissioners and the community. There is also a plain language overview of the code amendments on the project website:https://speakupaustin.org/transitLDC and there will be plain language posters explaining the code amendments developed for the open houses.
Answered: 04/12/2024 11:07 AM
20 Haynes 04/04/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Will there be a plain language summary developed before the open house so the average citizen can understand how this proposal may impact their home and neighborhood before it is considered?
Posted
Staff provided a presentation about the LDC amendments at the April 11 Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission. The April 11 presentation is intended to be informative and understandable for both the Commissioners and the community. There is also a plain language overview of the code amendments on the project website:?https://speakupaustin.org/transitLDC and there will be plain language posters explaining the code amendments developed for the open houses.
Answered: 04/12/2024 11:09 AM
21 Barrera-Ramirez 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
For the DBETOD program, what was the process for developing the calibration for affordability percentages of the rental and owner units? Were developers or real estate professionals consulted on the level of incentive that makes sense for their projects? Were groups such as RECA consulted?
Posted
A third party economic consultant conducted preliminary analysis of potential participation in the DBETOD bonus program; this analysis and its results are described in the ETOD Overlay staff report starting on page 34. The overall takeaway from this analysis is that both a 30- and 60-foot height bonus is potentially feasible, especially when less parking is built, which is appropriate since these developments will be close to the rail line. The analysis shows that the proposed bonus program structure is feasible for some development scenarios today and will become increasingly feasible for developments as market conditions change. Further analysis that is more fine-tuned and that considers sub-market variations in different neighborhoods across the Project Connect system will be undertaken when developing future phases of the ETOD Overlay.

The timeline for developing this proposal did not allow for a full calibration effort or for iterative input and engagement on the proposal. Engagement is anticipated to occur later this year and early next year as staff begins developing future phases of the ETOD Overlay, which could include amendments to and recalibration of the density bonus requirements.

Instead, staff designed the DBETOD affordability requirements based on two Council-approved density bonus programs. The ownership percentage (12% of total units at 80% MFI) was designed to mirror the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) bonus program requirements. Because ownership projects in bonus programs are rare today, staff did not increase the DBETOD requirement beyond the DB90 requirement. Further calibration that will take place as part of future phases of the ETOD Overlay will help determine if the requirement should be modified. The DBETOD rental percentages (12% of total units at 50% MFI or 15% of total units at 60% MFI) replicate the requirements for properties near light rail transit that were included in the now-invalidated VMU2 program.
Answered: 04/19/2024 03:02 PM
22 Barrera-Ramirez 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Why would a developer choose to use DBETOD over other available programs such as DB90? In the past, the calibration model used for Riverside Corridor did not work to incentivize the construction of affordable units. How will this program be more successful?
Posted
A developer would choose the Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus (DBETOD) program for various reasons. First, the DBETOD height limit is 30 ft taller than what is allowed in the DB90 program. And since eligible properties will already be rezoned to DBETOD, developers will not have to apply for a rezoning as they would for DB90. Rezoning adds additional time and cost to the process, and there is no certainty that the rezoning will be approved.

Additionally, DBETOD is proposed to supersede Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCDs) and Conditional Overlays (COs), except for any impervious cover and use restrictions, thereby offering more flexibility for site design than DB90.

The East Riverside Corridor (ERC) Regulating Plan has a different bonus requirement structure where a minimum 50% of the bonus area is earned via affordable housing, a minimum 25% of the bonus area is earned via publicly accessible open space, and the remainder is earned via a choice of other public benefit options. The principal benefit of the DBETOD program is affordable housing. Our consultant team’s analysis of the proposal indicates that certain sites would be able to take advantage of the program under certain circumstances and as market conditions continue to change. Additional information about that analysis can be found in the staff report. The goal of DBETOD is to support development of additional housing along transit, to develop additional income restricted affordable housing, and to minimize displacement of existing residents, businesses, and affordable housing. Based on the consultant’s analysis, staff feels that the proposed program will be able achieve those goals.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:22 PM
23 Cox 04/11/2024 Compatibility Standards
Can Staff provide any benchmarks from other cities to compare compatibility standards across the nation and in TX to the changes being proposed?
Posted
Answer Cox #23
Answered: 04/25/2024 01:29 PM
24 Cox 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
In the presentation to Council and PC, staff said the City "does not have the authority to zone/rezone State owned property" and that is why the ETOD overlay excludes these properties. Is that correct? My understanding is that the City DOES have the authority to zone/rezone these properties and has done so in the past (or contemplated it). The State does not need to adhere to local zoning regulations, but if a State property is sold then local zoning regulations would apply rather than the project remaining "unzoned".
Posted
While the City technically has the authority to zone unzoned property, including State-owned property, the zoning would need to be initiated by City Council and would need to specify a proposed base zone for the property. The resolution that initiated the ETOD Overlay did not explicitly initiate application of base zones to unzoned property or modification of any base zoning, and it is not appropriate to apply a combining district to an unzoned property without also applying a base zone.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:22 PM
25 Cox 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
The affordable housing requirements are +10% for ownership/rental projects within the ETOD overlay. But for the South Central Waterfront Plan the PC just contemplated, we were told that 5% AH is "barely" feasible. Please explain why +10% AH is feasible in ETOD areas but not in the high-value south central waterfront area.
Posted
There are two main reasons for the differences in affordable housing requirements between the South Central Waterfront Density Bonus program (DBSCW) and the ETOD Overlay Density Bonus program (DBETOD).

Building Typology - DBSCW is designed for buildings up to 600 feet or greater, in some areas in the South Central Waterfront. This requires a different type of construction method compared to the 120-foot maximum included in DBETOD. Economic analysis performed by staff and consultants indicated that the development of high rise structures envisioned in the South Central Waterfront area is challenging with current market conditions, resulting in a lower affordable housing percentage requirement.

Requirements for Bonus - The DBETOD only requires the provision of affordable housing to make use of the bonus. The DBSCW has multiple requirements in addition to the 5% affordable housing requirement for a property owner to receive bonus area. For participation in the DBSCW, a property owner must also provide enhanced environmental protections, enhanced streetscapes, built environment improvements, and in-lieu fees for affordable housing, parks, and infrastructure. To be granted significant bonus density through the DBSCW, additional requirements include the choice of the following community benefits: open space, music venues, parks, child and adult care centers, affordable creative space, grocery stores, transit-supportive infrastructure, and other cultural uses. This list of community benefits came from the Vision Framework Plan, as well as from community feedback.
Answered: 04/23/2024 08:46 AM
26 Cox 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
What protections are proposed for renters and owners within the ETOD overlay that are currently in market-rate affordable (120% MFI or less) units that will be under greater threat of displacement due to these additional redevelopment entitlements?
Posted
Under the residential redevelopment requirements (Chapter 4-18, Division 2) in the ETOD Overlay density bonus program (DBETOD), there are several protections that would apply regardless of a renter or owner’s MFI that could protect those in market-rate affordable units. If a property owner were to decide to redevelop an existing multi-family structure, they would first be required to establish that the existing multi-family structure requires extensive repairs that would cost more than 50% of the value of the structure. This provision alone can prevent the displacement incurred by redevelopment, regardless of which income levels the existing property serves. If the property were eligible for redevelopment, all tenants, regardless of income, are required to receive notice and relocation benefits.

DBETOD projects redeveloping an existing multi-family use that includes units affordable to tenants at 60% MFI and below would also have the additional requirement to explicitly replace on a one for one basis the units at 60% MFI and below.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:27 PM
27 Cox 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Can Staff provide any benchmarks from other cities with transit-oriented overlays that were reviewed in the development of these code changes?
Posted
Through work with a consultant group, a number of cities with transit-oriented overlays were selected as case studies as part of the development of the ETOD Overlay. Because of the timeline, however, staff did not get to analyze if or how practices from these case studies could be successfully incorporated in the context of Austin. Instead, staff leaned on existing bonus program elements that had already been approved by City Council. The ownership percentage (12% of total units at 80% median family income, or MFI) was designed to mirror the Density Bonus 90 (DB90) bonus program requirements. The Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus (DBETOD) rental percentages (12% of total units at 50% MFI OR 15% of total units at 60% MFI) are the same as those that Council adopted in the now-invalidated VMU2 program for properties near light rail transit. In future phases of the ETOD Overlay, staff will have the opportunity to more thoroughly study the work of peer cities and understand if promising practices should be applied in Austin.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:23 PM
28 Cox 04/11/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
How is emergency access maintained for residences built on flag lots?
Posted
Flag lots are currently required to conform to fire code, utility design criteria, plumbing code, and requirements for fire access. These requirements will continue to be applicable under the proposed code amendments for any new flag lots that are created, and the Austin Fire Department (AFD) will continue its review of subdivisions and building permits as required. For flag lots or properties that are re-platted, fire access is required when any portion of a house is more than 150 feet from a public street. If that is the case, a 25-foot-wide fire access lane is required to be built per the Fire Code. Alternatively, AFD would allow the installation of a NFPA 13D sprinkler system to meet the Fire Code requirements for residential structures further than 150 feet from a public street.
Answered: 04/19/2024 03:09 PM
29 Alter, R 04/11/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What was the original rationale for SF-1 lots to only have 40% IC?
Posted
SF-1 zoning was originally intended for lower-density single-family residential use on lots with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet or on lots where there may be limitations precluding a standard lot size, such as steep topography. Therefore, the 40% impervious cover limitation for SF-1 zoning districts was scaled to the larger minimum lot size, potential site constraints, and the limitation to one dwelling unit.
Answered: 04/19/2024 03:10 PM
30 Alter, R 04/11/2024 Compatibility Standards
Can you put detention ponds in the 10-25’ restricted zone?
Posted
As currently written, only green stormwater infrastructure is allowed in both the 10' screening zone and the 15' restricted zone. However, after further consultation with the Watershed Protection Department, staff now recommends that all types of stormwater control systems, including detention ponds and green stormwater infrastructure, be allowed in the screening and restricted zones. Staff plans to bring modifications to the compatibility buffer for Council consideration as part of a separate ordinance on May 30. A separate ordinance is needed because the compatibility buffer requirements are located in Chapter 25-8 (Environment) of the Land Development Code, and not in Chapter 25-2 (Zoning) with the rest of the citywide compatibility code amendment.
Answered: 04/23/2024 08:37 AM
31 Alter, R 04/11/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Why not include ETOD overlays along Red line stops?
Posted
The current proposal for the ETOD Overlay, initiated by Council Resolution No. 20240201-054 directed staff to develop a proposal that would apply within a 1/2 mile radius, or approximately a 10-minute walk, of the Phase 1 Austin Light Rail alignment and Priority Extensions. Staff anticipates developing future phases of the ETOD Overlay that would apply to other parts of the Project Connect system, including MetroRapid and MetroRail stations; the next phase of the ETOD Overlay is anticipated to be ready for Council consideration in spring 2025.
Answered: 04/19/2024 03:11 PM
32 Cox 04/12/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Public feedback indicated the presence of multiple affordable housing developments that accept Section 8 vouchers within the ETOD boundary. What will be the disposition of these properties in the proposed ETOD code amendments and what protections are offered to prevent displacement?
Posted
The federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, previously called Section 8, supplements rent payments. Recipients choose a house or apartment available in the private market and contribute about 30% of their income towards rent, while the federal government pays the difference.

Properties participating in the Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus (DBETOD) program that accept HCV that serve households earning 60% or less of the Median Family Income (MFI) will be subject to the same residential redevelopment requirements (Chapter 4-18, Division 2) as other properties that provide housing for households earning 60% MFI or below.

If a property owner were to decide to redevelop an existing multi-family property, whether or not it accepts HCV, they would be required to establish that: 1) the existing multi-family structure requires extensive repairs that would cost more than 50% of the value of the structure; and 2) that the average rents for all units that were affordable to a household earning 60% MFI or below (which includes Section 8 recipients earning 60% or less of the MFI) were not raised by more than 10% within the past 24 months.

If their property does meet those requirements, they would be required to follow specific guidelines for redevelopment. These guidelines include: replacing all existing units that were affordable to a household earning 60% MFI or below in the previous 12 months (including Section 8 recipients earning 60% or less of the MFI), and having at least as many bedrooms as the units that are being redeveloped. All existing tenants, regardless of MFI level, would be required to receive notice and information about the proposed development and relocation benefits that are consistent with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Additionally, all existing tenants would be required to be allowed to lease a unit of comparable affordability and size following completion of redevelopment.

DBETOD participating developments would also be prohibited explicitly from discriminating on the basis of an individual’s source of income, making it easier for voucher holders to access housing in ETOD areas in the future.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:25 PM
33 Cox 04/12/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
What is the status of any low-income homeowner assistance programs so that they can equitably employ the entitlements afforded by HOME Phase 1 and this proposed HOME Phase 2 changes?
Posted
The Housing Department has received direction from Council to research and provide information about the viability of potential programs to provide low-income homeowner assistance. The response is under development.
Answered: 04/23/2024 08:49 AM
34 Cox 04/12/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Can staff provide model graphics and data showing the maximum development potential for various SF lot sizes and various subdivided lot configurations that account for *both* HOME 1 development entitlements and the HOME 2 proposal?
Posted
Example Model Graphics for Q&A - Home 2.docx (also attached as a PDF to the email).
Answered: 04/23/2024 09:05 AM
35 Johnson 04/02/2024 Compatibility Standards
Why did staff depart from the previous approach of reducing the required buffer for smaller subject lots?
Posted
Instead of including a reduced buffer for smaller sites, staff exempted lower-intensity zoning districts from the compatibility buffer requirement. These zoning districts typically have smaller lot sizes as described on page 9 of the staff report. More intensive zoning districts typically have larger lot sizes, meaning the buffer requirement would not excessively restrict development potential.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:37 AM
36 Johnson 04/02/2024 Compatibility Standards
25 feet is a lot of land to be dedicated solely to landscaping and auto-oriented uses such as driveways in an urban setting. Did staff analyze how many housing units are lost by not reducing the required width of this area?
Posted
Yes, staff analyzed how many housing units are lost within each compatibility distance. Staff estimates that capacity is reduced by approximately 8,331 housing units within the 25' buffer compared to base zoning entitlements. Although not an assumption in the unit capacity analysis, the 25’ buffer allows for other necessary site infrastructure such as green stormwater infrastructure, fire lanes, etc., which creates additional developable area beyond the 25' buffer that can be used to produce additional housing units. See pages 6-8 of the staff report for information about this analysis.
Answered: 04/12/2024 09:39 AM
37 Haynes 04/12/2024 Compatibility Standards
Will there be a plain language summary developed before the open house so the average citizen can understand how this proposal may impact their home and neighborhood before it is considered?
Posted
Staff provided a presentation about the LDC amendments at the April 11 Joint Meeting of City Council and Planning Commission. The April 11 presentation is intended to be informative and understandable for both the Commissioners and the community. There is also a plain language overview of the code amendments on the project website: ?https://speakupaustin.org/transitLDC and there will be plain language posters explaining the code amendments developed for the open houses.
Answered: 04/12/2024 11:11 AM
38 Haynes 04/11/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Do the provisions of Local Government Code 212.004 apply to property subject to division under HOME2?
Posted
Yes, when someone divides a tract into two or more parts (i.e., lots), they need to follow the platting process.
Answered: 04/23/2024 09:07 AM
39 Johnson 04/22/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
I just want to confirm that current code Sec. 25-2-513(G) means that in all SF districts, a porch that is open on three sides can encroach up to 5 feet into a required front or side street setback. Is this section enforced by residential review today? Will this section apply to the small lot single family residential use established by HOME phase 2?
Posted
Yes, this section is enforced as written. If the property is zoned MF-3 or more restrictive, a porch can encroach up to five feet into the front and/or street side yard. This section will apply to HOME Phase 2 applications as well.
Answered: 04/23/2024 08:40 AM
40 Alter, A 04/22/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
How many properties in the DBETOD area currently are subject to a CO that would be overridden (or partially overridden) if a property accessed DBETOD entitlements? Please provide a map of those properties.
Pending  
41 Alter, A 04/22/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Under what conditions can a commercial property access the DBETOD entitlements without adding a residential component? Can an existing commercial property access the DBETOD entitlements without adding any residential development?
Posted
There are no conditions under which an Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus (DBETOD) project could result in a 100% commercial project. DBETOD projects on properties with commercial base zones would be required to provide a residential component.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:25 PM
42 Alter, A 04/22/2024 Compatibility Standards
The staff report for the changes to compatibility describes opportunities for structural alterations. Can staff please provide additional detail on some of the scenarios that would qualify for this component of the ordinance?
Posted
Section 25-2-1052 - Exceptions states “compatibility requirements do not apply to a structural alteration that does not increase the square footage, area, or height of a building.” Examples could include an interior remodel or exterior repair of an existing structure that does not increase the height or area of the structure.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:25 PM
43 Alter, A 04/22/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
Please provide a color-coded map to understand the height of the properties across the ETOD zoning, i.e. to be able to see which can potentially reach as high as 120 feet. Please also provide a table which, for each base zoning affected, provides the base height limit, the available bonus height, and the maximum height available with the bonus.
Pending  
44 Alter, A 04/22/2024 ETOD Overlay (Phase 1)
If a property is in the ETOD overlay and does not pursue DBETOD, do the proposed compatibility updates (in the compatibility LDC changes) apply to a property?
Posted
If a property is in the ETOD Overlay and does not pursue the Equitable Transit-Oriented Development Density Bonus (DBETOD), it would be subject to the proposed citywide compatibility standards.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:26 PM
45 Alter, A 04/22/2024 One-Unit Minimum Lot Size (HOME)
Please confirm whether and how the HOME draft ordinance would include garages within FAR limits?
Posted
Garages count toward gross floor area and are therefore included in the Floor-to-Area (FAR) calculation. The proposed regulations use the same definition of Gross Floor Area as HOME Phase 1, which defines Gross Floor Area as the total enclosed area with a clear height of more than 6 feet.
Answered: 04/30/2024 03:26 PM
46 Alter, A 05/07/2024 Compatibility Standards
Please provide a summary of what height, FAR, and impervious cover allowances were granted to the Statesman PUD and please also provide a comparison of those entitlements and what would be allowed in the relevant subdistricts of the SCWF as currently proposed.
Pending  
47 Alter, A 05/07/2024 Compatibility Standards
Please provide a summary, organized by proposed subdistrict, of the height, FAR, and impervious cover allowances for properties in the various subdistricts today, and please provide a comparison of those existing entitlements and what would be allowed in the relevant subdistricts of the SCWF as currently proposed.
Pending  
48 Alter, A 05/07/2024 Compatibility Standards
Please provide a summary of the staff recommendations for community benefit requirements, including, but not limited to, affordable housing requirements, and please provide a comparison of how those recommendations differ from other comparable city density bonus programs. Please include details on onsite requirements vs. fee in lieu options, and please provide details on the length of time any onsite units would need to remain affordable, and how the proposed SCWF affordable housing requirements compare to other comparable density bonus programs.
Pending