CodeNEXT proposal


#1

As we noted in an earlier email, CodeNEXT has up-zoned Heritage to T4.IS allowing all single-family lots to have 4-unit multiplexes while leaving adjacent neighborhoods zoned single-family. The Board of Friends of Heritage believes that CodeNEXT should apply this zoning evenly to all central Austin neighborhoods, not just Heritage. However since that was not done in CodeNEXT, we would like to propose the following change to Heritage’s CodeNEXT mapping:

  • The interior of Heritage will remain single-family, with less intensive T3 (single-family homes, duplexes, and ADUs) zoning rather than the proposed T4.

  • The corridors on our perimeter (Lamar, Guadalupe, and 38th) as well as 34th Street will be given zero parking minimums for residential units under T4.MS (Main Street) zoning, making it possible to build more housing along those streets than under the existing proposed CodeNEXT zoning. Adding residential units simply requires building a second story without needing space for additional surface parking.

The deadline for comments on the text of CodeNEXT is Tuesday June 6. Friends of Heritage will submit a proposal and meet with city staff to ensure our voice is heard. Join the discussion on our forums to share your thoughts and question, and see our CodeNEXT page for background and to get involved. Read below for detailed information on our proposal.

Density on the corridors

This spring Mayor Adler said in his State of the City speech: “For starters, let’s agree we will not force density in the middle of neighborhoods… and in exchange, let’s also agree that we will adopt a code rewrite that will give us the housing supply we need by focusing along our major corridors.”

In addition he said “I would also urge that neighborhoods be given significant influence in deciding how these transition areas are done in those neighborhoods, so long as each accommodates an appropriate share of the city’s needed housing supply.”

Friends of Heritage is taking Mayor Adler up on his offer and providing an alternative that meets those criteria.

Why eliminate parking parking minimums along our corridors?

A key reason we have not seen much mixed-use development along Lamar and Guadalupe is that the parking requirement of one space per residential unit makes it infeasible on the smaller shallower parcels on those streets. Parking garages are not allowed in T4.MS zoning, requiring all parking to be on the ground and reducing the space available for the building.

Eliminating minimum parking requirements for residential units in T4.MS zoning makes retail + residential possible on every lot. A new retail development can add two more stories of residential with only the incremental cost of building the housing.

  • Balance: It gives the city the additional housing needed to meet Austin’s explosive growth while maintaining Heritage’s residential core. The proposed CodeNEXT T4.MS (Main Street) zoning along our corridors allows three-story developments with retail/office on the ground floor and housing above.

  • Sustainable: It discourages car use and encourages biking, walking, and mass transit. As one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Austin, Heritage is a desirable place for people who do not own a car.

  • Winnable: By meeting the goal the city has set for accommodating additional housing, Heritage has a strong argument for preserving our residential core. Simply saying “No” to the city’s density increase without offering an alternative ignores that Austin’s population has been doubling every 20-25 years. Saying “No” also ignores the political reality that the proposed CodeNEXT T4 zoning for Heritage could be approved by our 10-1 council, most of whose districts are not affected by T4 zoning.

  • Residential Permit Parking (RPP) ensures that parking will still be available for residents along our neighborhood streets. RPP is not provided for multi-family housing units so if we find zero-parking housing causes parking problems on our interior streets, we can implement RPP in those blocks. Several streets in Heritage already have RPP to limit parking only to residents during posted times. In addition people who own cars are not likely choose an apartment without parking when most other apartments in Austin do have it.

What is the next step?

The above proposal was drafted by the board of Friends of Heritage after discussion and consultation with neighbors, but we want the entire membership to participate. Share your thoughts and ask questions on this forum.

There are several important dates in the coming weeks:

  • Saturday June 3: District 9 CodeNEXT map open house. The Map Open Houses offer a broad overview of how zoning was applied across the city and in each particular Council District, and staff will be present to answer questions. Be aware that this open house is for all of district 9, not just Heritage.

  • Tuesday June 6: Last date for comments on the text to be incorporated in the final staff recommendation provided to the Planning Commission and Zoning & Platting Commission. This is less than two weeks away and it is important that Friends of Heritage has its proposal included as comment.

  • Friday July 7: Last date for comments on the map to be incorporated in the final staff recommendation provided to the Planning Commission and Zoning & Platting Commission.


#2

Hi John,
Thank you so much for these write up. I can’t participate in person because I am out of town this year, but what I am concerned about and want to learn more about is the specifics of T3, and whether or not single-family will actually be preserved if we are zoned as such. From what I have seen so far, it looks like the definitions for “duplex” and ADUs are form-based, rather than density or person based. I think that means that a normal heritage lot with a duplex and an ADU could have 3 units, each with up to four separate bedrooms (in terms of the size of Heritage lots), which could mean 12 unrelated adults living on one parcel instead of the current house. If this is right (still trying to get my head around the specifics with the help of my husband who is an architect and understands the implications of the zoning from that POV) do you think that the pressures from developers will not destroy the capacity for families to move in? And, even for families to sustain property values or want to stay if 12 students are next door? I am thinking about the difference we saw in the hood when it went from 6 unrelated adults living together to 4. If it goes up to 12 it is hard for me to imagine families being able to compete with development for what are currently single-family, but I too think we need to densify! Thoughts? Thank you again!


#3

Hi Sarah, that is an excellent question and I agree that maintaining the current occupancy limit is important. The original draft of CodeNEXT increased the occupancy limit to 6 per single-family use, 3 each for a duplex, and for a ADU 4 in the main house and 2 in the ADU. However on February the administrator of the CodeNEXT site added a comment:

From CodeNEXT Staff - "Error by Omission: This section does not reflect ordinance 20160303-007 passed by City Council on March 3, 2016. Ordinance: www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=250026

Friends of Heritage, and I’m sure HNA, will be monitoring this to ensure the comment is honored and the original definition of occupancy is maintained in the final CodeNEXT draft submitted to the Planning Commission and Zoning & Platting Commission.

Nuria Zaragoza, who lives in Shoal Crest and was active in the occupancy limit reduction, sits on the PC and Betsy & Jolene sit on Z&P, and I’m sure they will notify us if the current occupancy limit of 4 is not maintained.

Finding information about CodeNEXT can be difficult but the FoH CodeNEXT page has links to key documents including Chapter 23-4 Zoning Code where the occupancy limits are. If you go to the zoning code online you can search for “Dwelling Unit Occupancy Limit” to find section 23-4E-7040.

You’ll see the text talks about an occupancy limit of 6 but there is a comment bubble (currently with the number 4 in it) that you can click on to see the admin’s comment that it was an error by omission. Please click that thumbs-up icon next to the staff comment to upvote it. (Be aware that if you download the PDF you’ll miss all these staff updates and public comments.)


#4

Thanks John, if the occupancy limit remained, that would be great news (if we became t3). I am going to look into these links and learn more about the limit, etc. Thanks!


#5

John,

Thanks for monitoring this issue. The T4.IS would change Heritage forever. Please let me know how we can help.

Richard Whittington & Michelle Cutrer
614 West 31 1/2 Street
512-422-1401


#6

The city is making these changes in it’s land-use to be able to provide homes for the growing population of Austin - folks moving here to participate and gain access to the economic prosperity available in Austin, especially in it’s core.

If Heritage doesn’t want some of the homes that the city is trying to provide for those folks, in which back yards do we propose they go?

I actually think it’s a bit hard for me personally to sign on to a call that reduces the opportunities to provide more homes. And in terms of this specific proposal, I don’t think we can make a call for reducing the housing numbers in this neighborhood without also making an explicit call to put those homes into other neighborhoods.


#7

I don’t think this proposal reduces the amount of total housing units from what is proposed under CodeNEXT T4.IS. As the proposal notes our corridors are currently mainly single-story due to the inability to fit the required parking needed for additional stories of housing.

Eliminating parking minimums on Guadalupe, Lamar, and 34th Street would make it feasible to redevelop the retail on those streets (especially Guadalupe and Lamar) with two additional stories of housing. The housing could be built not just on top of the retail building but also over the rear parking area. From 29th to 38th on both Lamar and Guadalupe, that’s a significant amount of housing units, I would think comparable to what we’d realistically see in our interior if we changed zoning from duplexes to 4-plexes.