CodeNEXT Voting Results –
Friends of Zilker does not approve of the CodeNEXT maps as they are currently drafted.
Support – 21 (100%)
Oppose – 0 (0%)
Additional Ballot Items
Question #1
Friends of Zilker believes requiring form based envelopes for transect zones will strip current property owners of existing rights and severely limit building options. CLICK MORE BELOW TO SEE SUGGESTED CHANGES AND DEFINITIONS.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 20 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 1 |
Question #2
Friends of Zilker believes Accessory Dwelling Units provide important “missing middle” housing in our neighborhood. CodeNEXT will limit the number of properties that can have ADUs and the size / design options of ADUs vs what is currently allowed in the code. If CodeNEXT passes our neighborhood is likely to see fewer ADUs built in the future.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 19 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 2 |
Question #3
Friends of Zilker believes duplexes are an essential part of creating “missing middle” housing. CodeNEXT adds arbitrary restriction on what style of duplex can be built on T3 (sub urban zone) and T4 (general urban zone) lots. These restrictions do not currently exist and will force designs that may not be optimal for the site or the future occupants of those duplexes.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 21 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 0 |
Question #4
Friends of Zilker believes CodeNEXT zoning regulations will force changes to existing, long established, setbacks. T3 and T4 transect zone setback requirements are more onerous than their non-transect equivalents (LMDR, MDR).
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 20 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 1 |
Question #5
Friends of Zilker believes that to increase density and maintain building footprints the only way to go is up. CodeNEXT severely limits heights from existing code requirements, in fact, height restrictions are more onerous at 32 ft in T3 transect zone than the 35 ft limit in the equivalent LMDR non-transect zone. This is incongruous with the purpose of designating transect zones and will serve to reduce entitlements on most of the T3 designated lots.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 19 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 2 |
Question #6
Friends of Zilker believes one of the goals of CodeNEXT / Imagine Austin was to give more flexibility in what can be built near transit corridors. Transect zones (T3.x, T4.x, T5.x, and T6.x) are by definition “applicable to neighborhoods to the urban core or downtown, the most urban part of the City. Transect zones are only applied through a Form-Based Code.” Our Zilker neighborhood, which fits the bill for a transect zone, has been overlain with a hodge-podge of zonings. The incongruencies range from non-transect islands within the transect zones to legacy designations within the transect zone. In general, as drawn, entitlements are being reduced in our neighborhood which contradicts the spirit of Imagine Austin in general and the definition of transect zone specifically. Additionally, a form-based application was not used. There is a severe lack of “missing middle” housing and hardly any T4 designations. The current maps include T5 (most intense zoning) along Lamar, but many lots that back to the T5 zoning have T3 zoning – the mappers failed to include the T4 transition zones in parts of the neighborhood. Step-downs occur from T5 to LMDR or T5 to T3. A side by side comparison of the current code against CodeNext clearly shows that CodeNext zoning designations were overlaid to mimic the current zoning characteristics, albeit actually reducing some entitlements as mentioned above. But the point of overlaying with CodeNext should be to steer growth in a new direction—one with at least some upzoning and at least a semblance of form based zoning. This clearly hasn’t happened and the maps depict a huge down-zoning overall. The purples generally don’t “dissolve” into yellows they step change drastically omitting the oranges and browns that is the missing middle housing.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 19 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 2 |
Question #7
Friends of Zilker believes the goal of CodeNEXT is to increase the number of affordable housing options. A maximum of 3 unrelated adults in a two family use is too few. Additionally, no city government, especially Austin’s, should be in the business of determining what constitutes a “family”. (The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of your type of family.)
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 19 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 1 |
Question #8
Friends of Zilker believes the Zilker neighborhood suffers from very poor drainage. The changes to how drainage calculations are done (currently delta from existing development to new vs zero to new) will cause more individual lots to have retention ponds. With land being at a premium in Zilker ($70-100+/foot) it is not sensible to force drainage requirements on to projects that are less than 1/2 of an acre and under 45% impervious.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 20 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 1 |
Question #9
Currently there are numerous examples of “legacy” code designations (such as SF-6 or MF-2) within the new maps. The point of CodeNext was to reduce the complexity with the current code, primarily since it contains so many Conditional Use Overlays. Even if there are restrictions that must “run with the land” these should be moved over to the new designation, otherwise we will be forced to retain both codes, which will result in increased complexity.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position and I approve these suggested changes: | 21 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 0 |
Question #10
Friends of Zilker does not approve of the CodeNEXT maps as they are currently drafted.
| Yes. I support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 21 |
| No. I do not support Friends of Zilker taking this position. | 0 |