Questions Request From Category Status   * Any Alter, A Ellis Kitchen Pool Tovo * Any Transition Areas Housing Capacity Code Content Map Transportation Environment Other * Any Pending Posted Withdrawn No. Requestor Received Category Question Status Answer 1 Pool 10/21/2019 Housing Capacity At the October 8 Council LDC Work Session, staff and consultants described a “feasibility test” illustrated on page 11 of the presentation in which a determination was made as to whether a developer could build on a parcel “based on market conditions and land cost.” According to the presentation, if the parcel is determined not to be a feasible development, the “parcel is not included in capacity estimates.” Please provide the total number of housing units, feasible or infeasible, that has been mapped for the LDC revision. Describe why the infeasible units were not counted, including for market conditions, land cost, or other factors such as conservation easements. Posted Information about how feasibility of development was determined can be found in the 'Envision Tomorrow Modeling Assumptions for the Land Development Code Revision' document which is available on the LDC Revision website and has been uploaded below. 'Envision Tomorrow Modeling Assumptions for the Land Development Code Revision Answered: 11/07/2019 04:33 PM 2 Pool 10/21/2019 Map We have heard LDC staff state that only 2% of the zoned area of the city is being upzoned. Please provide the data behind that statement and explain how staff reached that 2% data point. Posted The size of all the zoned properties in the City is roughly 180,400 acres. The size of transition areas is roughly 3,580 acres. 3580/180400=0.019 or 1.9%. Answered: 10/29/2019 01:37 PM 3 Pool 10/21/2019 Other How many Short Term Rentals of all types (STRs 1, 2, & 3) are registered with the City of Austin? How many unregistered, or illegal, STRs have been reported in Austin, and what type (STR 1, 2, or3) are they? Posted For 2018 - 2019 there were 1,748 Type 1, 231 Type 2, and 865 Type 3 licensed properties. During FY 18-19 the Code Department handled a total of 2,168 cases related to unlicensed STRs. Data provided by a third-party contractor, Host Compliance, indicates there are over 7,000 units operating without a license but this has not been confirmed by City staff. Answered: 10/29/2019 01:40 PM 4 Pool 10/21/2019 Map The Council LDC policy document from May 2 states that “existing market rate affordable multifamily shall not be mapped to be upzoned,” and yet many existing market affordable multifamily properties are mapped to be upzoned. Please explain why this particular directive from council was not followed for all multifamily properties. If the decision not to follow this directive is based on a lack of available data, please note the data source that would provide this necessary information. Posted In response to City Council's May 2 Policy Direction regarding Market Rate Affordable Multifamily, LDC Revision staff acquired data from NHCD (CoStar) for addresses of properties that have rents at 80% Median Family Income (MFI) or less. Staff reviewed each address to ensure that the comparable zone from the new draft Code was applied to the draft map. The result of this process was no up zoning of Market Rate Affordably Multifamily properties at 80% MFI or lower. Answered: 10/29/2019 04:33 PM 5 Pool 10/21/2019 Map The R2B zoning district differs from R2A zoning district mainly in the front setback requirement. It appears that R2B was mapped in the urban core primarily adjacent to transition zones and behind transit corridors. Please provide the rationale for this mapping position of the R2B zoning district. Posted R2B has a front setback of 15 feet and has frontage requirements that pertain to providing front amenities, such as porches. It was mapped on single family zoned properties that are considered to have either small block lengths and higher connectivity or are adjacent to proposed transition areas so as to maintain the same setbacks along a single block face since the transition zones also have a 15 feet front setback. Answered: 10/29/2019 04:35 PM 6 Pool 10/21/2019 Code Content What percentage of the proposed increased entitlements are tied to the density bonus program? Posted Per Council direction, increased entitlements were primarily applied to the Transition Areas through the application of two Transition Zones (R4, RM1). The Transition Areas comprise approximately 2% of the City's land area. These zones both have density bonus options. The remainder of the City received closest comparable zones. Answered: 11/20/2019 10:32 AM 7 Pool 10/21/2019 Environment Please provide the existing and proposed impervious cover totals per watershed. Also, please explain how the 11% and 33% increases in impervious cover (5 percentage points for the “R4” transition zone district over the existing 45% limit and 15 percentage point for the “RM1” transition zone district over the same) are calculated. Please demonstrate how that increase complies with the council directive to maintain or decrease impervious cover in each watershed. Please also provide an explanation of the importance of impervious cover limits for flood mitigation, water quality, tree canopy health, and other issues. Posted Staff has calculated the existing impervious cover and the maximum amount of impervious cover allowed under current zoning and the proposed LDC Revision zoning for each watershed. We will provide this information in a white paper describing the impervious cover analysis and post it on the LDC Revision website as soon as possible. Increases of 11% and 33% do occur on individual R4 and RM1 properties, respectively, that change from existing single-family residential (45% impervious cover maximum) to missing middle zones (50% and 60% impervious cover maximums). (Note that some R4 and RM1 properties actually see no change or a decrease in impervious cover, because some of these properties are already zoned multifamily or commercial.) The higher impervious cover limits for R4 and RM1 were proposed to meet Council direction to increase the supply of missing middle housing. Staff’s impervious cover calculations focused on citywide and watershed totals, per Council direction. All watersheds show either a slight decrease or little or no increase in maximum impervious cover. With most R4 and RM1 properties seeing increases in impervious cover maximums, other properties therefore see reduced maximum levels to collectively achieve an overall change of plus-or-minus 1% impervious cover in virtually all watersheds. Generally speaking, reductions of impervious cover limits in high-intensity commercial zones offset the transition zone increases. On the scale of a watershed, the incremental impervious cover increase from transition zone mapping is limited since they generally comprise only a small portion of any given watershed. Pervious cover has well documented, wide-ranging benefits for environmental and human health, including storm water infiltration and sustained creek baseflow; reduced channel erosion; space for trees and other vegetation; higher soil moisture; increased resilience of vegetation; cooler ambient temperatures; and increased natural habitat. Answered: 11/05/2019 03:51 PM 8 Pool 10/21/2019 Code Content In which Residential House Scale zones does the “Preservation Incentive” allow one additional unit on top of the base entitlement? Posted The Preservation Incentive allows one additional unit on top of the base entitlement in all 8 Residential House-Scale zones, as well as all 5 Residential Multi-Unit Zones and 6 Mixed-Use zones. Answered: 10/29/2019 04:35 PM 9 Pool 10/21/2019 Map The Austin Mobility Strategic Plan “Land Use Policy 1” states: “Planning should be flexible to take into account the existing character of neighborhoods and community input to appropriately allocate density within transit corridors, and we must plan to achieve the transit-supportive density appropriate for the planned mode of transit.” In light of this statement and other factors, there appear to be mapping decisions that do not align with this ASMP adopted policy, e.g., 45th Street between Burnet Road and Bull Creek Road. There is no existing bus service serving this section of 45th Street, and with the narrow lanes and 5’ foot remaining right-of-way, Capital Metro has stated the difficulty of future bus stops on this stretch. Given these conditions, the 10-12 lot transition zone depths along this section of 45th Street do not align with the reality of existing or future mobility modes on this residential street. Please point to examples of similar transition zone mapping along residential streets in the urban core where the existing mobility options are limited. Posted After releasing the map on Oct. 4th and subsequent conversations with the community, it has become evident that the characteristic of Transit Priority Networks differ across the city. Transit Priority Networks that are residential in character, such as 45th street, are being evaluated for a more context sensitive approach to applying transition mapping. This will also include further coordination with CapMetro on identifying expectations for different transit lines in the near future. Other residential Transit Priority Networks in the Urban Core include Oltorf, Enfield, Duval, Red River, Westover, Manchaca, St. Johns, Berkman, Montopolis, Rosewood, and Govalle. On October 25th, staff issued a Supplemental Staff report revising the staff recommendation to reduce Transition Areas by one lot for residential character Transit Priority Network roadways. That report is uploaded below. LDC Revision Supplemental Staff Report No. 1 Answered: 11/07/2019 04:41 PM 10 Pool 10/24/2019 Housing Capacity How many new housing units mapped in District 7 are located on major transit corridors such as Burnet Road and Lamar Blvd, and how many are located in the transition zones? Posted Please see the uploaded Capacity Analysis Along Transit Priority Corridors by District TPN Capacity by District Answered: 11/13/2019 07:36 PM 11 Pool 10/24/2019 Housing Capacity In current Planned Unit Development and regulating plan areas, was the expected housing unit yield under the current code and entitlements the same as under the proposed code? Did planning staff increase the housing unit yield in those areas in the proposed new code and map? If the total housing unit yield changed, please provide the numbers. Posted For the LDC Revision analysis, the capacity assumptions for PUDs are the same as the current code. Answered: 11/07/2019 04:45 PM 12 Pool 10/24/2019 Environment The council policy direction document on the land development code revision states that “Reductions in impervious cover city-wide should either decrease allowable impervious cover for, or make no changes to, each individual watershed (relative to current code)." The latest blog post on the city planning staff’s LDC website acknowledges that impervious cover is increasing with the new code. The increase in impervious cover is described as “not a significant change.” http://www.austintexas.gov/department/balancing-flood-risk-reduction-improved-water-quality-and-impervious-cover However, the direction from council called for a reduction or no change in impervious cover in individual watersheds. In two of our city’s watersheds, Johnson Creek and Waller Creek, the increases are more than one percent. Staff appears to have veered from council direction here by allowing increases in any watershed. Please explain the rationale for not following council direction on impervious cover. Posted Staff delivered our best recommendation in service to the May 2 Council Direction. The .2% increase in impervious cover city-wide, and a 1.5% and 1.1% increase in 2 of 68 watersheds, was considered concurrent with the 397,000 housing unit capacity reached of the 405,000 Council directed goal. Answered: 10/29/2019 06:33 PM 13 Pool 10/24/2019 Housing Capacity Please break down the housing capacity mapped fronting commercial transit corridors versus residential corridors and transition zones across the city. Posted Staff is still working to define criteria as to if a corridor is commercial or residential as a part of the process of reducing transition areas by one lot on primarily residential corridors. Many corridors have a mix of commercial and residential zoning. Generally the commercial corridors which have Main Street and Mixed Use zones provide more capacity by area than the RM1 and R4 mapped on residential corridors. Answered: 11/20/2019 10:34 AM 14 Pool 10/24/2019 Transition Areas Please describe the distinctions made between corridors on the Transit Priority Network. For example, did staff distinguish between major transit corridors such as Burnet Road or Lamar Blvd and residential corridors such as Duval or 45th Street? In making those distinctions, did staff map the areas differently in terms of the depth of transition zones? Posted When mapping transition areas, staff applied them to the corridors defined by the May 2nd Council direction to focus on Transit Priority Networks and Imagine Austin Corridors. From there, the different criteria of high opportunity, well gridded streets, the urban core, vulnerable areas, and not encompassing the majority of a single family area; These criteria were established to maximize and minimize transition area mapping. In the draft map released on Oct. 4th, the levels of criteria served as a guiding factor more so than the distinctions of each corridor as residential or commercial. Throughout the engagement process that has taken place since the Oct. 4th release, staff has had many conversations with the community and amongst ourselves about how to refine the mapping of transition areas on corridors and a revised staff recommendation is included in the Supplemental Staff Report finalized on Friday, October 25 that reflects a reduction in transition area mapping along corridors with residential frontage. That report is uploaded below. LDC Revision Supplemental Staff Report No. 1 Answered: 11/07/2019 04:50 PM 15 Pool 10/28/2019 Transition Areas Please provide the housing capacity that has been mapped in new transition zones by council district. Posted Please see the uploaded Transition Area Capacity Analysis by District (R4 and R1 Zones within Transition) Transition Area Capacity Analysis by District (R4 and R1 Zones within Transition) Answered: 11/07/2019 04:53 PM 16 Pool 10/28/2019 Transition Areas The May 2 Council Policy Document directs staff to map the transition zones 2-5 lots deep, yet the current proposed map from staff shows several areas that are mapped at much more than 2-5 lots - in some cases, the transition zones are mapped at 12-15 lots deep. Please explain the rationale behind not following the council directive at the 2-5 lot deep level. Also, please explain if calculations were made on housing capacity at the 2-5 lots deep level, and if so, what are those capacity totals? Posted The Council direction adopted on May 2nd directed that “Generally, the transition area should be two (2) to (5) lots deep beyond the corridor lot” and “The depth and scale of any transition area should be set considering context-sensitive factors and planning principles such as those set out in the direction for Question 4.” One of those context-sensitive factors Council defined was “Orientation of blocks relative to corridors.” The application of transition areas based on depth and guided by lot counts, is explained in the Staff Report released on Oct. 4th. Please refer to the Section called “Depth of Transition Areas” beginning on page 10 to find an in depth explanation of the transition area rationale. The report is uploaded below. LDC Revision Supplemental Staff Report No. 1 Answered: 11/07/2019 04:55 PM 17 Tovo 10/28/2019 Code Content Would properties rezoned as R4 and RM1 also be eligible for the preservation bonus, bringing the total allowable units for either category to 5-9 or 7-11, respectively? Posted Yes. Answered: 10/29/2019 04:41 PM 18 Tovo 10/28/2019 Map Please indicate the percentage of each district that has been mapped as “transition zone.” Posted Please see the uploaded table for the percentage of transition zones by district. Area of Transition Zones by District Answered: 11/07/2019 12:30 PM 19 Tovo 10/28/2019 Map Please indicate how the 2% citywide mapped in transition zones breaks down by Council district. Posted Please see the forth column of the uploaded table. Area of Transition Zones by District Answered: 11/07/2019 12:33 PM 20 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity For District 9, please indicate how much of the projected capacity falls within “transition zones.” Posted Please see the uploaded table. Transition Area Capacity Analysis by District (R4 and R1 Zones Within Transition Area) Answered: 11/07/2019 04:57 PM 21 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Indicate for District 9 the percent of capacity that would be redevelopment of existing housing. Posted Please see the uploaded table. District Level Estimated Capacity Analysis Answered: 11/07/2019 05:01 PM 22 Tovo 10/28/2019 Other Code Next Draft 1 used the Envision Tomorrow tool to analyze expected redevelopment for each zoning category. For example, properties rezoned to Transect 4 were estimated to have a redevelopment rate of 25% - ie. 1 out of every 4 properties would be expected to redevelop if up-zoned to allow 4 units (or higher on particular lots). Please provide updated information that corresponds with the anticipated rate of redevelopment for properties rezoned to RM1 and R4 categories. Posted The methodology used to determine housing capacity in the first draft of CodeNEXT is different from the current methodology. The current methodology looks at feasibility of parcels rather than applying a single redevelopment rate by zone. More information on parcel feasibility is included in the uploaded document. Envision Tomorrow Modeling Assumptions for the Land Development Code Revision Answered: 11/07/2019 05:03 PM 23 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity For District 9, please indicate how much of the projected capacity falls within Downtown. Posted The capacity for CC & DC zones within District 9 is 50,914 housing units. Capacity by district and zone can be found in the uploaded document. Housing Capacity by Zone Summary Answered: 11/07/2019 05:11 PM 24 Tovo 10/28/2019 Map Multiple neighborhoods in District 9 appear to have at least 50% of the properties rezoned to R4 and RM1 zones. Please identify any neighborhoods outside of Council District 9 that have proposed re-zonings approaching 50% of total properties. Posted Staff reduced transition areas when more than half of the single family zoned area between multiple corridors would be encompassed in the transition area. The depth of the transition was first established based on how many criteria were met by the corridor, and reductions were made accordingly. Please see the uploaded file that shows the acres zoned R2 and the acres zoned in the transition by district. Transition and R2 Area By District Answered: 11/21/2019 12:24 PM 25 Tovo 10/28/2019 Code Content Can units within R4 and RM1 categories be short term rentals? If so, please provide the maximum number of units per tract that could be used as short term rentals. Posted Type 1 and Type 3 STRs are permitted in the R4 and RM1 zones. Type 1 STRs (owner-occupied) do not have a cap; Type 3 STRs are limited to 1 unit or 3% per building (whichever is more), not to exceed 3% per census tract. NOTE: Staff recommended the following in the supplemental staff report: "Revise Sections 23-3C-3030 and -4030 (Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements) to prohibit Type 3 STRs in the two transition area zones: R4 and RM1. Consider allowing them for projects providing on-site affordability to help off-set the cost associated with those on-site affordable units." Answered: 10/29/2019 04:43 PM 26 Tovo 10/28/2019 Other Have staff calculated whether, under the proposed code, the City will meet the corridor goals for production and preservation of units at 90% MFI and below as outlined in the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint? Posted Austin City Council set citywide affordable housing goals through the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint as well as geographically specific goals for council districts and 2016 Mobility Bond corridors. A wide range of tools and funding mechanisms are necessary to meet these goals. One such tool is the proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) of the revised Land Development Code (LDC). The AHBP creates opportunities to produce affordable housing across Austin without any direct public subsidy. The AHBP is a voluntary program that grants additional building entitlements like more height or dwelling units than would be allowed by the base zoning in exchange for income-restricted affordable housing for an extended period of time. This tool supplements other tools and funding mechanisms at the City’s disposal like the 2018 Affordable Housing Bond and Austin Housing Trust Fund. The revised Land Development Code plays a role in helping Austin reach the Blueprint affordable housing goals in two main ways: 1. Expands the density bonus program by increasing the opportunity to generate income-restricted affordable housing for an extended period of time in all parts of town and in different types of housing structures without direct public subsidy. 2. Increases capacity for missing middle and multifamily housing by providing more opportunities where other funding mechanisms and tools can be applied and public subsidies can be leveraged. An additional table will be uploaded showing the capacity of the LDC Revision within a half mile of the 2016 Mobility Bond Corridors. Answer Tovo #26 Answered: 11/14/2019 09:51 AM 27 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Do the projected capacity totals include calculations of potential residential capacity from re-zoning commercially zoned properties along corridors? Posted Yes. The capacity totals include the addition of residential entitlements to commercially zoned land. If the commercial property does not have any residential entitlements today, the development must participate in the bonus program to build housing. Answered: 11/14/2019 03:55 PM 28 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Please indicate, by Council District, the percentage of capacity expected to be achieved on vacant land. Posted Please see the uploaded table. District Level Estimated Capacity Analysis Answered: 11/07/2019 05:15 PM 29 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Please indicate, by Council District, the percentage of capacity that will be redevelopment of existing housing. Posted Please see the uploaded table. District Level Estimated Capacity Analysis Answered: 11/07/2019 05:15 PM 30 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Please indicate, by Council District, the percentage of capacity achieved from re-zonings on Imagine Austin corridors. Posted Please see the uploaded table. District Level Estimated Capacity Analysis Answered: 11/07/2019 05:17 PM 31 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Please indicate, by Council District, the percentage of capacity achieved from re-zonings on Imagine Austin Activity Centers. Posted Please see the uploaded table. District Level Estimated Capacity Analysis Answered: 11/07/2019 05:18 PM 32 Tovo 10/28/2019 Housing Capacity Please indicate, by Council District, the percentage of capacity achieved from "transition zones". Posted Please see the uploaded table. Transition Area Capacity Analysis by District (R4 and R1 Zones Within Transition Area) Answered: 11/07/2019 05:19 PM 33 Pool 10/29/2019 Environment LDC staff team members have cited the newly revised and adopted Plumbing Code as a resource for enforcing the prohibition on "lot-to-lot flooding." Please assist our council offices and the public by posting the language from the Plumbing Code that is referenced, along with the link. Posted The section of the Plumbing Code that addresses lot-to-lot drainage impacts is Section 25-12-153 (Local Amendments to the Uniform Plumbing Code), 1101.1: Where Required. Roofs and courtyards must drain into a separate storm sewer system of to some other place of disposal, satisfactory to the authority having jurisdiction. For one- and two-family dwellings, storm water may be discharged on flat areas such as streets or lawns so long as the storm water flows away from the building and to an approved location. For new construction or additions, the post construction site discharge is not to exceed the discharge rate prior to construction. To view this section online follow the link below and then scroll to section 1101.1: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=TIT25LADE_CH25-12TECO_ART6PLCO_S25-12-153LOAMUNPLCO Answered: 11/05/2019 03:56 PM 34 Pool 10/29/2019 Transition Areas How will transition zones be reconciled with neighborhood plans and existing Future Land Use Maps (FLUMs) if the neighborhood plan and FLUM are at odds with the transition zone zoning? Posted Neighborhood Plans, including their Future land use maps (FLUMs) are amendments to Imagine Austin. To reconcile potential conflicts between proposed transition areas and FLUMs, the new land use designation for transition areas in the Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map will supersede existing FLUMs. However, the Neighborhood Plan text affirms that FLUM land use designations control for all other purposes. For example, a rezone application outside the transition areas would require a FLUM amendment, if the use is not consistent with the FLUM. Likewise, within the transition area, future rezones (other than for RM1 & R4) would also require a FLUM amendment, if the use is not consistent with the FLUM. Answered: 11/26/2019 05:32 PM 35 Pool 10/29/2019 Other The Council LDC Policy Document from May 2 states on parking: "Minimum parking requirements should be generally eliminated in areas that are within the ¼ mile of activity centers, activity corridors, and transit priority network, except that some parking requirements may be maintained for areas where elimination of parking requirements would be particularly disruptive (conditions to be proposed by staff)." How did staff interpret "disruptive" and how was this overall directive implemented in the draft code? Posted Staff has interpreted “disruptive parking” as parking that could pose mobility and/or safety issues from proposed development sites to Imagine Austin Activity Centers and Corridors and the ASMP Transit Priority Corridors. This directive has been implemented in the LDC Revision by allowing for a 100% parking reduction for projects located within ¼ mile of these corridors only when an accessible sidewalk built to Code standards either exists or is constructed from the site to the corridor, or if the site and absent sidewalk segments on the route to the Corridor are ranked “high” or “very high” by the ASMP Sidewalk Plan. Answered: 11/06/2019 03:52 PM 36 Pool 10/29/2019 Environment Recognizing that impervious cover is but one piece of the overall flood mitigation puzzle, please describe the protections that will be provided against flooding in the new residential zones that increase impervious cover limits for multiple parcels in neighborhoods with existing watershed and local area flooding issues. For example, the new RM1 residential zone will allow 60% impervious cover, representing a 33% increase over the current 45% limit. The new R4 zoning district allows 50% impervious cover, an 11% increase over the current 45% limit. Will the RM1 zoning district require on-site detention of runoff and Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) on-site, or require payment into the Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP)? How will this assist our communities in preventing flooding? Posted The drainage and water quality requirements for R4 and RM1 zones will depend on whether a project qualifies for the streamlined regulations for residential development in LDC Division 23-2B-2. In general, projects in the R4 zone on a residentially platted lot would not require on-site detention or water quality treatment. The draft code treats these lower-intensity missing middle projects like one- and two-unit residential projects because they will have similar potential for environmental and drainage impacts, and removing the requirement for full drainage and water quality review meets Council direction to enable missing middle housing. However, R4 projects will need to prevent lot-to-lot drainage impacts by complying with Section 1101.1 of Plumbing Code, which requires stormwater runoff to drain to a separate storm sewer system or to some other satisfactory, approved location. This provision will help prevent or correct the type of drainage impacts that are more likely with this scale of development. The RM1 zone has an impervious cover limit of 60%. Projects at 60% impervious cover will not be eligible for the streamlined drainage and water quality regulations and will require full drainage and water quality review. Most RM1 properties are small enough to qualify for automatic eligibility for the Regional Stormwater Management Program (for sites 0.5 acres or smaller). This means that the project could choose to provide on-site detention or to construct off-site improvements or make a payment under RSMP. However, even projects that participate in RSMP will need to submit engineered drainage plans to ensure that stormwater is managed appropriately and there are no lot-to-lot drainage impacts created by the additional impervious cover. On the water quality side, RM1 projects with more than 5,000 square feet of impervious cover would be required to provide or contribute to water quality treatment. RM1 projects within Urban watersheds would probably be eligible to make a payment in lieu of providing on-site water quality controls (for sites one acre or smaller). RM1 projects outside of Urban watersheds would need to provide on-site green stormwater controls if they exceed 5,000 square feet of new or redeveloped impervious cover. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:44 PM 37 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other 1. The proposed affordable unit set-aside requirements in Table 23-4E-1040(B) includes a range of set-aside requirements from 5% to 50%. The hyperlinked maps in the “How-To and Guide for the Proposed Affordable Housing Bonus” show the amount of set-aside requirements based on a property zones for rental and ownership only contains mapping details for the 5%, 7% and 12% set-aside percentages. What is the expected / projected unit yield for the ownership and rental units that would contain 15+% set asides in their designated areas? Posted The proposed LDC revision increases the capacity for housing, both income-restricted and market-rate, but the actual development of a parcel is highly variable and influenced by many factors including owner preference, market conditions, construction costs, and development restrictions. For these reasons, there have been no yield projections created for income-restricted housing or otherwise. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:46 PM 38 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The “How-To and Guide for the Proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program” states: “please note that the unit set-asides may be changed in the future to reflect market conditions.” How often will the unit set-aside recalibration occur? Will this occur in tandem with the annual fee recalibration? Posted Staff is considering a three-year evaluation cycle, which would allow for sufficient time to monitor changes in market conditions and the performance of the program. There is an ongoing need for resources for regular calibrations to be most effective in creating affordable units in changing markets. Answered: 11/21/2019 05:36 PM 39 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The “How-To and Guide for the Proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program” states that “the number of units that must be set-aside as affordable differs by location, zone, and whether the units will be sold or rented […] the economics of a development are different if the units are planned to be sold vs. rented.” The areas within the “Map of Rental Affordable Unit Set-Asides” and the “Map of For Sale Affordable Unit Set-Asides” contain the same set-aside percentages within their designated areas. As the Guide states that, the economics are different for rental and ownership units. Please elaborate as to how that distinction is recognized in the areas in which rental and ownership are mapped with the same unit set-aside percentage. Posted Though the set-aside percentages are similar in many zones for rent and for sale developments, there are differences across zones (ex. RM3, MU1, and MU2) and by geographic areas. There are many similarities in the results, but separate analyses and modeling were completed to calibrate the set-aside percentages for rental and ownership products. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:47 PM 40 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other For ownership units that are generated through the density bonus affordability program, why must the initial sale price be 3.5 times the household’s income if someone in the household has completed approved homebuyer counseling or education, rather than 3 times the household’s annual income if they have not? In NHCD’s opinion, could this potentially disincentivize households from seeking homebuyer counseling or education? Posted This condition will be removed from the code and is no longer recommended by NHCD staff. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:48 PM 41 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Is it proposed that the fee-in-lieu option would be approved administratively in the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, as well as the other existing density bonus programs that currently require Council approval, such as PUDs or TODs? Posted The fee-in-lieu option for the AHBP would require approval from the Housing Director, but not from Council. Only on-site affordable housing could be approved administratively without approval from the Housing Director. The process for approval of in-lieu fees for affordable housing in PUDs and TODs would remain unchanged. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:48 PM 42 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other In a 2016 report from NHCD to Council, NHCD stated that there were opportunities and challenges associated with fee-in-lieu options. The opportunities included a desire for flexibility, the potential to leverage outside funds, the ability to use expertise of non-profits, and the conclusion that on-site monitoring of affordable units is difficult. The challenges articulated in the report were that the prices are often set too low, it could slow down the process, it could be difficult to get units in neighborhoods if land is not available or too expensive, and there may not be strong non-profits to receive and leverage the funds. How would NHCD determine when to accept a fee-in-lieu in the Affordable Housing Bonus Program? Would it be on a case-by-case basis or would NHCD create criteria that would be applied to assess whether a fee-in-lieu should be accepted. Posted NHCD is developing criteria for when fees-in-lieu would be considered for approval by the Housing Director, though each approval would be on a case-by-case basis. These criteria will live in program guidelines. Such criteria may include: •Non-residential projects •Ownership units where condo fees or homeowner association fees could make the monthly cost of housing unaffordable to an income-qualified owner •Small-scale projects where only one or two affordable units would be included, as providing training to property managers and monitoring a very small number of affordable units in a development requires extensive staff time Answered: 11/13/2019 06:50 PM 43 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Has NHCD considered removing the fee-in-lieu option along core transit corridors (per the recommendation from the 2014 Housing + Transit + Jobs team?) Posted Fees-in-lieu provide flexibility and resilience in a bonus program and aid in maximizing participation and overall delivery of affordable housing. The efforts of the Housing + Transit + Jobs Team were based within the context of the current LDC, and while helpful in that framework, were not considered within the comprehensive City-wide Affordable Housing Bonus Program framework. The current recommendations are reflective of this more comprehensive approach to fees-in-lieu. As the AHBP is currently structured, we will still need to have an option of fee-in-lieu for non-residential developments at a minimum. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:51 PM 44 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Is there a difference in the fee-in-lieu calculation for ownership units and rental units? Posted Fees-in-lieu are determined by bedroom count, but not by ownership or rental. Answered: 11/20/2019 10:41 AM 45 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The Affordable Housing Bonus Program includes an occupancy conversion provisions to account for the differing affordability periods between rental and ownership units. If there is a difference in the fee-in-lieu calculation for ownership and rental units (and there may not be), does the Program also contain a conversion policy for the purposes of fee-in-lieus? For instance, if a developer is approved to provide a fee-in-lieu for an ownership property, but converts the property to a rental property, would the developer be required to pay the delta (if there is one)? Posted Fees-in-lieu are the same for ownership or rental units. Answered: 11/20/2019 10:42 AM 46 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The Affordable Housing Bonus Program’s fees for residential development will be set so the fee covers the typical cost for NHCD to “buy-down” a market rate unit to make that unit affordable for the affordability period required by the program. Will the fees charged for non-residential developments utilizing a bonus be set in the same way the residential development fees are set? Posted The fee for non-residential bonus square footage is a flat $2 per bonus square foot. Non-residential developments have different financial feasibility than residential developments, necessitating a different fee. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:52 PM 47 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other How often will the fees in the Affordable Housing Bonus Program fee schedule be analyzed to reflect the most up-to-date market conditions? Will this require a consultant every year? Posted The cycle for recalibration of set-aside percentages and fees-in-lieu has not yet been determined. Staff is currently considering a three-year evaluation cycle, which would allow sufficient time to evaluate the performance of the program and allow land values to adjust to the new entitlements and restrictions of the code. We are determining the feasibility of training City staff to be able to recalibrate as needed, but currently rely on consultants to perform the calibration. Answered: 11/14/2019 05:00 PM 48 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other How does a land use restriction agreement differ from a public restrictive covenant? How does the City’s enforcement authority differ, if at all? Posted A public restrictive covenant is used for regulatory reasons because it usually concerns how property may be developed/used. A land use restriction agreement is a contract that documents an exchange of promises between the City and another party. Typically, if one party breaches a contract, the other party may request damages in a breach of contract lawsuit that is filed in state court. An alternative (and less common) request in a breach of contract lawsuit is to request the court order the other party to comply with the agreement. When a developer participates in a City density bonus program, the developer promises income-restricted units and the City promises additional height or density. A land use restriction agreement documents these promises and establishes how the City is compensated for non-compliance. Specifically, the agreement provides that (1) if NHCD is unable to determine that affordability requirements were met for a 12-month period, then an additional 12 months are added to the affordability period; and (2) if the City must file a lawsuit to obtain compliance with the affordability requirements, the City can ask the Court to issue an order that requires the developer to provide the income-restricted units that were promised in the agreement. These consequences are necessary to adequately compensate the City for the developer’s non-compliance since the income-restricted units are what the City received in exchange for additional height or density. In other words, money will not adequately compensate the City for the lost income-restricted units, especially because modifying the development’s structure is not likely an option. Answered: 11/21/2019 05:37 PM 49 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Will the monitoring for the Affordable Housing Bonus Program be contracted out? Or can this be accomplished with existing NHCD resources? Posted NHCD currently contracts with a third-party contractor to monitor affordable housing created through incentive programs. NHCD is considering charging an annual monitoring fee to offset the cost of monitoring these units. Otherwise, additional resources would be required to accommodate the increase in income-restricted affordable housing. Answered: 11/13/2019 06:53 PM 50 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other At what point will NHCD conclude its consideration of requiring payment for the monitoring fees and/or instituting fines for non-compliance with affordability requirements? Will NHCD institute such fees or fines administratively or will NHCD present its recommendation for Council approval? Must the decision as to whether to require monitoring fees or fines be made prior to the execution of the contractual agreement with the developer? Posted Because newly utilized land use restriction agreements address non-compliance with reporting/monitoring and affordability requirements, NHCD will wait to make a decision about monitoring fees or fines for non-compliance. Answered: 11/21/2019 05:37 PM 51 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Are all of the recommendations to all of the existing Density Bonus Programs contained in the May 9, 2019 memo included in the proposed draft? If not, which ones? Posted Please see the attached file with May 2nd Council direction regarding the Density Bonus Program and the status in the proposed LDC. May 2nd Council Direction Regarding Density Bonus Programs and Status in the Proposed LDC Answered: 11/13/2019 07:12 PM 52 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The “How-To and Guide for the Proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program” states that certain requirements for participation include source of income protection, affirmative marketing, dispersion of units, etc. The May 9, 2019 memo states that good cause eviction would also be considered for income-restricted units generated from a density bonus program and the S.M.A.R.T Housing Program. Is good cause eviction included in the proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program and/or S.M.A.R.T. Housing Program? Posted Based on discussions with stakeholders, NHCD does not recommend requiring good cause eviction as part of the proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program and/or S.M.A.R.T. Housing Program. Answered: 11/21/2019 05:38 PM 53 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other Regarding the revisions to 23-2E-1 in the staff supplemental report, what specific changes are staff suggesting “to improve the overall clarity and uniformity of the LDC affordable housing bonus provisions?” Posted •Clarify the Source of Income section and to which units it applies •Change “additional units in main building” in bonus calculations to “additional units per lot” to reflect bonuses available in R4 and RM1 zones •Remove outdated tables •Remove outdated/incorrect graphics -Add language to clarify that the required set-aside percentages will live in maps that will be adopted by ordinance •Unifying compliance and enforcement language across all sections •Remove references to an Affordable Housing Criteria Manual •Clarify the 23-4E-1090 Affordability Requirements section •These updates will be posted online as soon as they are drafted Answered: 11/13/2019 07:08 PM 54 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The Planned Unit Development Tier 2 affordability provisions were initially suggested to the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee in 2015. How long has this provision been in effect? Please provide the specific affordability provisions that are suggested to be reinstated in the staff supplemental report. Posted The PUD Tier Two Criteria was adopted via Ordinance 20080618-098 and amended via Ordinance No. 20131017-046 and 20170615-102. An affordability provision was adopted with the original ordinance in 2008. If a PUD elects to include an affordability requirement as a provision of superiority for the PUD, then the requirement is negotiated with NHCD at the time that PUD ordinance is created. The PUD Tier Two Criteria to be added that addresses affordable housing is: • 23-3C-9130 (E)(13) Affordable Housing. Provide for affordable housing beyond what would be required in a similar development under other land development code affordable housing bonus programs without the use of public financing, including providing the following, at a minimum: (a) not less than 10 percent of the total rental units and 5 percent of the total owner-occupied units developed within the PUD leased or sold in compliance with the terms defined in Subdivision 23-4E-1090 of this Title, and; (b) a fee paid to the Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department not less than the Planned Unit Development Affordable Housing Fee Rate times the total non-residential gross floor area developed within the PUD. (c) The applicant may propose alternative means of compliance to the Housing Director other than those described in Subsections (a) and (b). The Housing Director shall evaluate and report to Council whether the applicant’s proposal meets or exceeds the community benefit that would be required by complying with Subsections (a) and (b). Answered: 11/13/2019 07:13 PM 55 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other In 2015, Council directed the City Manager to prepare an amendment to Ordinance No. 20130627-105 that would effectively adjust the Downtown Development Bonus Fee Table to recalibrate the office and hotel density fees-in-lieu. This update has not occurred but was recommended in the May 9, 2019 memo. When will this amendment / fee schedule be presented to Council? Posted NHCD has contracted with ECONorthwest to recalibrate the in-lieu fees for the Downtown Density Bonus program as well as the in-lieu fees for all other existing density bonus programs. The recalibration process for downtown is expected to be completed in November 2019 and for other areas early in 2020. Answered: 11/13/2019 07:14 PM 56 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other The proposed Code states that the Downtown Density Bonus Program states that the “funds generated by the fee are exclusively are permanent supportive housing for low barrier approaches for the chronically homeless.” Ordinance No. 20130808-019 amended Ordinance 20130627-105 to ensure that money generated by the Downtown Density Bonus Program would be allocated for "permanent supportive housing for low-barrier approaches for the chronically homeless.” In 2017, Council approved Resolution No. 20171109-089 which would allow funds from the Downtown Density Bonus Program to be used for “low-barrier permanent supportive housing vouchers,” as well. Why did the proposed Code revert back to the 2013 language and not include the 2017 update? Posted This was an oversight; the language will be updated to reflect the most up-to-date ordinance. Answered: 11/13/2019 07:15 PM 57 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Other What changes, if any, were made to the Tenant Relocation Ordinance? Posted No changes other than correcting the naming convention for manufactured housing are proposed to the Tenant Notification and Relocation division of the code from the CodeNEXT Draft 3 version. A proposed change from the current code to the proposed LDC revision is that proof of a culpable mental state is no longer a requirement for an offense if a person fails to deliver notifications per the requirements of the ordinance. Answered: 11/21/2019 05:38 PM 58 Alter, A 10/31/2019 Environment Can staff please provide a map of areas identified by our Watershed Protection department as experiencing localized flooding within District 10. Can staff also please detail which areas are currently drafted to see an increase in impervious cover limits. Posted Please see the uploaded map of changes in maximum allowable impervious cover within local flood problem areas. Local flood problem areas are also mapped in the interactive Watershed Protection Master Plan Problem Score Viewer. A link to the Problem Score Viewer is available online at http://www.austintexas.gov/department/watershed-protection-master-plan . To view local flood problem areas, click on the second bullet in the grey bar at the left side of the page. The map will zoom to one particular area that corresponds with the explanatory text on the left side, but the user can change the extent to look at areas of interest by panning and zooming in and out on the map. Local Flood Area IC Changes Answered: 12/02/2019 10:39 AM 59 Alter, A 11/05/2019 Transportation How does the City plan to enforce Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans if they are included in the Land Development Code as a regulation? Posted Similar to all site development regulations, TDM plans will be enforceable via Code Compliance as approved plans are noted on final development permits as conditions of approval. Approved TDM plans may include various enforceability measures, depending on context and types of TDM utilized. Answered: 11/13/2019 07:45 PM 60 Alter, A 11/05/2019 Transportation How does the parking maximum work for residential development? Posted Parking requirements are outlined in the Zoning chapter of the LDC revision document; parking maximums which pertain to residential developments mirror parking maximums called out in the draft language which includes overall parking maximums of 100% in the Downtown area, 125% within centers, corridors, and transit priority networks, as well as 175% for the remainder of the City. Answered: 11/13/2019 07:46 PM 61 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Environment What is the total amount of impervious cover allowed (by watershed) in District 10 today? What is the total amount of impervious cover existing (by watershed) in District 10 day? What is the total amount of allowable impervious cover (by watershed) under the draft code in District 10? What is the total amount of impervious cover (by watershed) anticipated under the draft code in District 10? Posted Please see the uploaded table for information about existing impervious cover, current maximum allowable impervious cover, and proposed maximum allowable impervious cover by watershed for all council districts. For additional information about the change in maximum allowable impervious cover citywide and by watershed, please see the report titled Land Development Code Revision: Analysis of Proposed Impervious Cover Entitlements available at http://austintexas.gov/department/resources. Unfortunately, staff does not have the ability to create an accurate estimate of expected impervious cover. There are numerous factors that determine whether a property is likely to redevelop and, if so, whether it would reach its impervious cover limit. Many other code requirements influence the amount of impervious cover that can be developed on a site, including floodplain regulations, tree preservation, creek and critical environmental feature buffers, steep slopes, landscaping, utility easements, etc. Producing an accurate estimate of expected impervious cover would require site-specific investigation that occurs at the time of a building permit, site plan, or subdivision application. Staff simply does not have adequate information to make such a prediction on a city- or watershed-wide scale. IC Analysis by District and Watershed Answered: 12/02/2019 10:54 AM 62 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Environment Please provide us with the data showing what trends we have seen over the last three years in our residential permits issued for SF-3 and SF-2 building permits with respect to how much impervious cover on average new builds are being permitted for in comparison to their maximum allowable impervious cover? Posted Please see the uploaded file that details impervious cover for SF-2 and SF-3 projects that were permitted from 2016 to today. Average IC Permitted in SF Zones Answered: 11/22/2019 12:18 PM 63 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Environment Can staff please provide additional detail on the drainage regulations in our plumbing code? Please provide us with the history of how those plumbing code regulations have been recently used to remedy lot-to-lot drainage and flooding issues particularly for cases that results in red-tagging. Please provide detail on the length of time between first complaint of flooding provided to the city and how long after that before a red tag was issued and whether those cases have actually resulted in the situations being remedied and how long that resolution process took. Please also provide detail on the total number of cases where our plumbing code has been used to address these lot-to-lot flooding issues. Please also provide information on the penalties for violating the plumbing code, including maximum fine information and the history of whether and to what extend we have levied fines for violations. Posted The City has used Plumbing Code Section 1101.1, as adopted through a local amendment, to address lot-to-lot drainage. However, there is no data in the City’s case management system (AMANDA) as this is not something that has been tracked. In the instances that Development Services Department staff are aware of, the drainage problems were resolved during construction without needing to issue red tags, as the contractor worked with the City to gain compliance once the issue was identified. Enforcement of the Plumbing Code falls under DSD’s jurisdiction if permits are active on the site, and the penalty for violating the code would be failing inspections and/or not receiving a final certificate of occupancy. If construction has been completed and there are no longer active permits on the site at the time an issue is identified, the drainage problem can be addressed through the code enforcement process. Answered: 11/22/2019 12:18 PM 64 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Environment Have staff done an analysis comparing what most corridor properties have been zoned to allow for with respect to impervious cover, and how that compares with what is allowed today, and what is built out today? If so, please provide that information. While many corridors today may have a large amount of existing impervious cover, some of the corridors staff mapped are currently residential in nature and appear to have significantly less impervious cover than exiting major transportation corridors. Posted Please see the uploaded table for information about existing impervious cover, current maximum allowable impervious cover, and proposed maximum allowable impervious cover for properties along Imagine Austin Corridors and the Transit Priority Network. For additional information about the change in maximum allowable impervious cover citywide and by watershed, please see the report titled Land Development Code Revision: Analysis of Proposed Impervious Cover Entitlements available at http://austintexas.gov/department/resources. Corridor Impervious Cover Analysis Answered: 12/04/2019 02:16 PM 65 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Code Content Outside the context of the preservation bonus, within the R2B zone, can a single lot have a duplex and an ADU? Posted No, an R2B zoned lot is limited to 2 units if the preservation incentive is not used. Answered: 11/15/2019 01:32 PM 66 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Other As previously requested in work session, please provide us with a model of 4 and 8 units on 5000 square feet as allowed on an R4 lot. Posted Staff is currently in the process of contracting with an architecture firm to produce models beyond the scenarios created during public testing. We will include a 5000 sf lot in this ongoing effort. Answered: 12/02/2019 05:01 PM 67 Alter, A 11/12/2019 Environment Please provide a map of properties in the city that are on septic systems and please provide us with information on what limits septic systems place on allowable/feasible levels of unit density. Posted Please see the uploaded file for a map of on-site sewage facilities (OSSFs) throughout the City. OSSFs are typically located in areas where centralized wastewater system is not available or was not available at the time the site was developed. Sites with existing OSSFs are not required to connect to the collection system unless the system fails (is no longer able to treat and dispose of the wastewater generated onsite) or the home is developed/redeveloped and the property (the lot) is located within 100 linear feet of a wastewater collection main. Factors that may limit OSSFs in high density areas include: • Per the Plumbing Code, customers that are located within 100 ft. of a wastewater collection system are required to connect to the wastewater collection system. •Lot sizing requirements. Per 30 TAC 285, lots platted after 1988 must be no less than 1/2 acre if they are served by a public water supply system and one acre if they are served by a privately owned water system. •Per COA Chapter 15-5 lots platted after 10/13/2013 must be no less than 3/4 acre and as large of 2 acres to house one OSSF. COA lot sizing requirements are based on the water source and the environmental sensitivity of the development site. •Maintenance Issues. Depending on the treatment type, maintenance may be required. A homeowner's association or governing body may need to be created to ensure these systems are properly maintained and operated. •Lots that were platted prior to 1988 are grandfathered from the lot sizing requirements noted above but must be of sufficient size to properly treat and dispose of the wastewater flow while meeting state mandated setbacks (see link) . The following table shows approximated drainfield areas needed for an OSSF serving multiple dwelling units. •The minimum treatment volumes presented below are representative of primary treatment (typically one tank), depending on site conditions tertiary treatment (an average of three tanks) may be needed. The tanks must be accessible for inspection and maintenance, no surface improvements are allowed in the drainfield area(s). OSSF Sites Answered: 12/02/2019 12:16 PM 68 Alter, A 11/15/2019 Code Content Please confirm whether the attached model accurately reflects what can be built in an RM1 zone under the draft code released on October 4th. Question Alter #68 Posted It is difficult to determine if the submitted drawings meet all code and building requirements without more site information and detail. Staff have reviewed sites drawn by design professionals and the general public during Benchmark Testing and Public Testing and used this information, as well as these drawings, to refine the draft Code. Answered: 11/26/2019 04:17 PM 69 Alter, A 11/15/2019 Code Content Please confirm whether the attached model accurately reflects what can be built under the draft code released on October 4th. Question Alter #69 Posted It is difficult to determine if the submitted drawings meet all code and building requirements without more site information and detail. Staff have reviewed sites drawn by design professionals and the general public during Benchmark Testing and Public Testing and used this information, as well as these drawings, to refine the draft Code. Answered: 11/26/2019 04:17 PM 70 Alter, A 11/15/2019 Code Content Please confirm whether the attached model accurately reflects what can be built under the draft code released on October 4th. Question Alter #70 Posted It is difficult to determine if the submitted drawings meet all code and building requirements without more site information and detail. Staff have reviewed sites drawn by design professionals and the general public during Benchmark Testing and Public Testing and used this information, as well as these drawings, to refine the draft Code. Answered: 11/26/2019 04:18 PM 71 Alter, A 11/15/2019 Code Content Please confirm whether the attached model accurately reflects what can be built under the draft code released on October 4th. Question Alter #71 Posted It is difficult to determine if the submitted drawings meet all code and building requirements without more site information and detail. Staff have reviewed sites drawn by design professionals and the general public during Benchmark Testing and Public Testing and used this information, as well as these drawings, to refine the draft Code. Answered: 11/26/2019 04:19 PM 72 Tovo 11/20/2019 Housing Capacity The answer to Council question #23 identifies unit capacity by zone and Council district. Based on conversations with staff, capacity from within categories R1, R2A, R2B, R2C, R3, and RR is only being counted on vacant land. [Please estimate what the capacity numbers would be for properties with existing structures that could add accessory dwelling units or second and third units under R2B.] Posted The capacity within these zones are difficult to model because they are based on homeowner preferences and decisions. Therefore, the analysis takes a conservative approach to estimating capacity in these zones. Staff looked at permit data for context and in the past 10 years there have been less than 2000 ADUs built and about 1200 duplexes built on both vacant and developed land. Answered: 01/08/2020 04:17 PM 73 Tovo 11/20/2019 Housing Capacity Are there other zones, overlays, unit types, or property types that have not been calculated toward the total capacity? Posted As presented during the December 3rd work session, the answers to Question 72 and 74 explain capacity that may not be accounted for in the analysis. Likewise, future changes to the floodplain through Atlas 14 have not been included in the capacity analysis. Answered: 01/08/2020 04:17 PM 74 Tovo 11/20/2019 Housing Capacity Staff have indicated that some Planned Unit Developments (such as Robinson Ranch) have not been included within the capacity calculations. Please provide a list of PUDs that have not been counted. Posted PUDs that have been entitled since the beginning of the project have not been included in the capacity analysis. This includes The Grove and Austin Oaks, which account for no more than 3000 units total. Answered: 01/08/2020 04:19 PM 75 Tovo 11/20/2019 Housing Capacity Please calculate changes in capacity based on the University Neighborhood Overlay amendments approved on 11/14/19. Likewise, please calculate changes in capacity if proposed amendments to Mueller Planned unit Development are approved. Posted Staff will evaluate the changes to the UNO overlay and include changes in the next capacity calculation. Staff estimates if the proposed changes to Mueller are approved, the PUD will have an additional capacity of about 1300 units. Answered: 01/08/2020 04:19 PM 76 Alter, A 11/22/2019 Housing Capacity For an existing single family lot that is proposed to become R4, which can now do 4 units by right, plus 4 units with a bonus. How did you determine the feasibility that it would be built in this case where a structure was already built out? How feasible is it to do? - I would like to see this raw data for my district. Posted For each parcel zoned R4, a Residual Land Value test was performed to determine development feasibility. Existing land + improvement values for each parcel were used based on TCAD 2016 data. In R4, the pro forma analysis was done using the ‘Multiplex: Large’ building type. Additional information and the building type library can be found on this page under ‘Envision Tomorrow’: http://austintexas.gov/department/resources Answered: 12/02/2019 05:03 PM 77 Alter, A 11/22/2019 Housing Capacity How did you add capacity to regional centers? Posted Capacity was added to regional centers through the expansion of residential entitlements into commercial zones, the application of UC in the Highland Mall station, and the implementation of the Downtown Austin Plan through mixed use zones. Answered: 12/02/2019 05:03 PM 78 Pool 11/27/2019 Housing Capacity Please provide the number of housing units have been mapped across the city over the 397,000 capacity figure that has been provided. Posted Staff has not calculated the number of units allowed by entitlements (maximum units allowed by zone x land area) for the draft code. The difference between this and the 397,000 capacity figure will be explained further at Council Work Session on December 3rd. Answered: 12/02/2019 05:02 PM 79 Pool 11/27/2019 Other Please provide a combined map of the proposed Transition Zones and the Growth Concept Map. Posted Please see the uploaded map Growth Concept and Transition Area Map Answered: 12/06/2019 05:13 PM 80 Pool 11/27/2019 Other Please provide a combined map of the proposed Transition Zones and the city's watersheds. Posted Please see the uploaded map showing transition zones within watersheds. City Wide Transition Zones by Watershed Answered: 12/06/2019 05:16 PM 81 Pool 11/27/2019 Other The Supplemental Report #1 from October 25 has information about staff's recommended changes to the Growth Concept Map (P. 9 "Additional Provisions." The more recent Supplemental Report #2 from November 25 does not appear to have this Growth Concept Map information included. Please indicate where to find staff recommended changes to the Growth Concept Map as part of the second report. If those recommendations have changed or been removed, please explain why. Posted The October 25th Supplemental Staff Report #1 identifies updated language and a new map to add to the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan. The map that was included in the report contained proposed transition areas and growth corridors and centers. The proposal is to add a new map to the Growth Concept Map Series, not replace the Growth Concept Map. The recommendation is the same, however, staff is proposing that the new map only have the transition areas. Please find this new map uploaded on this post. Draft Transition Area Map Answered: 12/08/2019 06:32 PM 82 Ellis 12/05/2019 Map Please provide a map that has shows different lot sizes broken out throughout the City. Posted Please use this URL to access a GIS map that identifies the size of lots throughout the City. https://arcg.is/T9DSz0 Answered: 12/05/2019 03:25 PM 83 Pool 12/06/2019 Environment The following are questions raised by a constituent in District 7. Please provide more information on: 1. Payment-in-lieu of onsite flood controls. 2. The Draft Code's impact on Shoal Creek Flooding 3. The Draft Code's impact on allowable impervious cover in Allandale. 4. The impact of impervious coer in 25 to 100 year floods. 5. The Draft Code's impact on flooding near House Park. 6. Payment in lieu in regards to small sites vs. larger sites. 7. The Draft Code's impact on infill residential impacts on flooding. Posted Please see the uploaded document for more information on these topics. Watershed Responses to D7 Questions Answered: 12/06/2019 05:37 PM 84 Pool 02/07/2020 Housing Capacity How many affordable units have been created or preserved in each Council District toward the goals set in the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint? Posted The Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint was approved by the Austin City Council in 2017 and set a ten-year goal to create or preserve 60,000 units to serve low- to middle-income households earning approximately $60,000 or less per year. The Blueprint emphasized that this affordable housing would extend new and affordable housing choices for all Austinites in all parts of Austin, particularly along the city’s transit corridors. To meet these goals, City Council identified specific affordable housing goals within each Council district and along transit corridors. The online Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint Goals by Council District provides a detailed list of developments with affordable units for which loans have been approved from 2017 to date, as well as developments including affordable units through incentive programs, such as density bonus programs or S.M.A.R.T. Housing, for which the site plan has been completed. The dashboard identifies "units created” or units funded through approved loan agreements as a part of the Rental Housing Development Assistance or the Ownership Housing Development Assistance program; units supported by Council for state tax credit applications; and affordable units that are a part of developments that received development incentives with “Site Plan Completed” status. (The “Total City-Supported or Incentivized Income-Restricted Units” includes affordable units incentivized or funded by loans approved as a part of the programs listed above.) Data included is for units meeting the specified criteria from October 1, 2017 to date. The online Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint Goals by Council District can be found here: https://performance.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Austin-Strategic-Housing-Blueprint-Council-Distric/qpwq-jsqr/ Answered: 02/07/2020 09:39 PM 85 Kitchen 02/10/2020 Map Provide the number of lots per residential zone by Council district and the percentage of each zone throughout the City. Posted Please see the attached document for these numbers. Second Reading Residential Zone Breakdown Answered: 02/10/2020 07:03 PM 86 Alter, A 02/11/2020 Housing Capacity Please provide the zoning capacity by district. Posted Please see the attached summary of the capacity by zone and by district reflecting the high end of the range capacity. Summary of Capacity by Zone and District Answered: 02/12/2020 01:56 PM 87 Tovo 02/13/2020 Housing Capacity Please provide information on the number of properties in missing middle zones in the 2nd reading draft. Posted Please see the attached document for these numbers. Second Reading Missing Middle Property Breakdown Answered: 02/13/2020 09:36 AM 88 Kitchen 02/20/2020 Map Please explain the impact of the proposed amended growth concept map as it relates to future zoning cases and neighborhood plans. Posted The Missing Middle and Transition Area (MMTA) Land Use designation map (Figure 4.5.1 in Imagine Austin) is a new map in the Imagine Austin Growth Concept map series. The MMTA furthers Imagine Austin’s Growth Concept by identifying priority areas appropriate for “house-scale” multi-unit residential development. “House-scale” multi-unit residential development should consist primarily of multi-unit projects that include three to eleven residential units consistent in character with existing single-family uses. The MMTA provides planning guidance aimed to increase residential density in areas along corridors that are accessible to multimodal transportation options, as well as in areas that are near amenities and associated with positive life outcomes. It supersedes existing neighborhood plan future land use maps (FLUM) specific to areas. A FLUM amendment will not be necessary for approval of a “House-scale” multi-unit residential development zoning case (R4 or RM1) in the areas designated on the MMTA map. The rezoning to R4 or RM1 outside of land use areas designated in Figure 4.5.1 must go through the additional step of a FLUM amendment. The application of these zones must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the MMTA land use designation map provides this consistency. Neighborhood plans are proposed to maintain the same relationship and influence on the City’s planning and zoning processes as they do today. Specific to the draft LDC Revision, the procedural requirements for neighborhood planning from the current Land Development Code (Sec. 25-1-805) in Section 23-1B-401 remain and are not proposed for change. Answered: 03/06/2020 07:59 AM 89 Kitchen 02/20/2020 Map Is it accurate to describe the amended map as similar to a FLUM but with greatest superseding or dominant influence? Posted The role, purpose and intent of the MMTA is described with the response to the previous question. Answered: 03/06/2020 07:59 AM 90 Kitchen 02/20/2020 Map Will zoning cases involving properties mapped as future transition zones in the amended growth concept map: Go through public process at the land use commissions and Council for approval? Will cases include petition rights by neighboring property owners? Will zoning cases be recommended by staff for increased entitlements? Posted The public notification and engagement process, as well as the Zoning/Re-zoning and Neighborhood Plan amendment processes are not proposed to change through the Land Development Code revision. The intent of the MMTA Land Use designation map is to help guide future land use. When zoning requests are filed in an area designated on the MMTA Land Use Designation map, same as today, Imagine Austin and the MMTA are one of many planning tools staff utilizes to determine a case recommendation. Answered: 03/06/2020 08:00 AM 91 Kitchen 02/20/2020 Map Is it variable or is there flexibility around the timing of the amended map’s effective date? Posted No, the MMTA land use designation map provides consistency with the comprehensive plan. The application of missing middle and transition area zones (R4 and RM1) are supported by the MMTA which is a part of the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan. Answered: 03/06/2020 08:00 AM 92 Alter, A 02/26/2020 Map Can staff produce a map showing RR to SF-6 zoned lots in the city that are over 10,000 sf? ? Posted Please see the uploaded map. R2 Parcels Over 10k sf Answered: 03/11/2020 09:12 AM 93 Alter, A 02/26/2020 Map Can staff also produce a map showing lots that are currently <7,000 sf and zoned for R2 zoning categories? Posted Please see the uploaded map. R2 Parcels Under 7k sf Answered: 03/11/2020 09:14 AM 94 Kitchen 03/12/2020 Map Will zoning cases involving properties mapped as future transition zones in the amended growth concept map involve contact teams making recommendations of these properties are part of a FLUM? Posted The Missing Middle and Transition Area (MMTA) Land Use designation map is a land use planning tool. Proposed as an Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map amendment, it provides broad policy guidance for areas appropriate for missing middle housing. The provisions in current code related to contact teams (Sec. 25-1-805) and their role in the neighborhood plan amendment/Future Land Use Map (FLUM) process are not proposed for change in the LDC Revision (Section 23-1B-4010). Consistent with today’s practice, contact teams maintain their roles in land-use (FLUM) and zoning decision-making processes. Specific to your questions and case scenarios provided: Zoning cases involving properties that are 1) mapped as future transition areas within the MMTA and 2) mapped in an adopted neighborhood plan FLUM area will not require a FLUM amendment. In zoning cases where neighborhood plan FLUM amendments (proposed Section 23-2F-2030) are not required, contact teams can participate as stakeholders in the zoning case process and provide their input accordingly. Answered: 04/23/2020 12:41 PM 95 Kitchen 03/12/2020 Map Will zoning cases involving properties mapped outside future transition zones in the amended growth concept map involve contact teams making recommendation if these properties are part of a FLUM? Posted The Missing Middle and Transition Area (MMTA) Land Use designation map is a land use planning tool. Proposed as an Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map amendment, it provides broad policy guidance for areas appropriate for missing middle housing. The provisions in current code related to contact teams (Sec. 25-1-805) and their role in the neighborhood plan amendment/Future Land Use Map (FLUM) process are not proposed for change in the LDC Revision (Section 23-1B-4010). Consistent with today’s practice, contact teams maintain their roles in land-use (FLUM) and zoning decision-making processes. Specific to your questions and case scenarios provided: Zoning cases involving properties that are 1) not mapped as future transition areas in the MMTA, but 2) are mapped in an adopted neighborhood plan FLUM area, will involve contact teams making recommendations, same as they do today. This zoning case type will be processed according to procedures outlined in Section 23-2F-2030 (LDC Revision) which is consistent with current procedures in Sec. 25-1-Article 16 (Title 25). Meaning, the role of the contact teams in Neighborhood Plan FLUM amendments is not proposed for change. Answered: 04/23/2020 12:44 PM