Friends of Zilker Position Paper on CodeNEXT Draft 3
Friends of Zilker is a democratic and inclusive neighborhood association. Our group was founded in 2015 and we have 118 active members who rent/own a home in Zilker or operate a businesses in our neighborhood.
After reviewing the language and maps for CodeNEXT, having a workshop (40+ attendees), a listening session (25+ attendees), robust online discussion on our forum, we drafted this position paper paper held and online vote via Helios (secure online voting platform) for all 118 of our registered members and the following are the results.
OVERALL – 17 yes / 2 no
Friends of Zilker supports CodeNEXT Draft 3. CodeNEXT includes modest improvements to allow for more housing density, reduce parking infrastructure, and is more organized and usable for a layperson than the current code.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – 18 yes/ 1 no
Friends of Zilker supports changes to ADUs in R2C (23-4D-2120)
- ADUs can be placed in front of primary structure
- Preservation incentive : ADU does not count toward FAR limit when existing house (at least 10 years old) is preserved
- No parking requirement for ADUs
DUPLEX – 18 yes/ 1 no
Friends of Zilker supports changes to Duplexes in R2C (23-4D-2120)
- Duplexes allowed on lots 5000 sqft +
- Duplexes can be configured front/back, up/down, left/right
- Duplexes require 1 parking spot per unit
SETBACKS – 18 yes/ 1 no
Friends of Zilker supports maintaining status quo on setbacks (23-4D-2120-B) and 23-4E-7070
- Allowing setback averaging gives move development options while maintaining neighborhood character, ie – many streets have average setback of 15’ now which is less than the 25’ standard.
- Removing setback maximum from CodeNEXT allows for more house placement to be most sympathetic to other lot characteristics.
PARKING – 18 yes / 1 no
Friends of Zilker supports CodeNEXT reductions in parking requirements for both commercial and residential. (23-4D-2040)
HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS – 16 yes / 3 no
Friends of Zilker does not support the height restrictions in CodeNEXT for R2C (23-4D-2120D)
- Friends of Zilker recommends increasing the maximum height to top plate from 22’ (allows for 2 stories) to 30’ (allows for 3 stories).
FLOOR TO AREA RATIO – 19 yes / 0 no
Friends of Zilker does not support the FAR in CodeNEXT for R2C (23-4D-2120 A)
- Friends of Zilker recommends removing FAR, as impervious cover and other form controls are sufficient, but if FAR stays in the code we recommend increasing it from .4 FAR to .5 FAR
- This will resolve the “garage door issue” so people can put doors on carports
- This will allow for all duplexes to have family sized living units (1250 sqft+)
- This will allow for more housing units (ADU’s) on existing lots
ENVIRONMENTAL – 17 yes / 2 no
Friends of Zilker does not support changes to environmental requirements proposed.
- CodeNEXT should not require residential projects that fall within the standard requirements to undergo drainage review and meet “no adverse impact”
- Requiring an engineer to stamp a “no adverse impact” shifts the liability for negligence from the City to the engineer and home owner
- “No adverse impact” is not currently required for residential development under 45% impervious cover and under .4 FAR
- “No adverse impact” study in Zilker for a residential lot was quoted by multiple engineering firms as costing between $5k-50k with the average being $25k. Requiring this type of review increasing housing cost, and provides very little benefit aside from keeping engineers employed.
- Requiring commercial re-development to return to “greenfield” is a dramatic change from the status quo and should not be required for the Lamar Corridor.
- Requiring commercial developments to return to “greenfield” will increase the number and size of retention ponds which is a poor use of very valuable real estate, and will very likely stall re-development of prime commercial properties.
INCREASE OCCUPANCY LIMITS – 17 yes / 1 no
Friends of Zilker does not support setting the maximum occupancy of a duplex being no more than three unrelated adults. (23-4E-7040)
- 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. We recommended a maximum of 2 people per bedroom, if any maximum is required. 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.)
IMPERVIOUS COVER – 18 yes / 1 no
Friends of Zilker supports CodeNEXT maintaining the status quo of 45% impervious cover for R2C. (23-40-2120 G)
- Flooding is a problem in Zilker, but a reduction of impervious cover on sites as they redevelop will only marginally reduce the risk over the time. Friends of Zilker believes the better solution to resolving flooding is to immediately improve drainage infrastructure for both the North and South Zilker drainage systems by completing Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the 1804 S Lamar Caliber Collision Storm Drain Project ID 20001. (see below)
- Stormwater retention to reduce localized flooding can be more efficiently accomodated by regional detention systems and common infrastructure at the point of runoff through green streets and rain gardens in the ROW.
CONCLUSION
Friends of Zilker would like to encourage following things to be amended in CodeNEXT
Height for R2C (23-4D-2120D)
Increase To Top Plate (max) to 30’ and Overall (max) to 40’ to allow for 3 story construction in our neighborhood.
FAR in for R2C (23-4D-2120 A)
Increase max FAR from .4 FAR to .5 FAR to allow for more livable space, allow for garage doors on carports, and promote larger “family sized” duplexes.
Duplex Occupancy Limit (23-4E-7040)
Increase legal occupancy of a dwelling to 2 per bedroom, and remove 6 person max between two units which only allows for 3 people per side.
Land
CodeNEXT (D1) 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 |
Expansion of Didactia Preschool into 1507 Hether St
Results: Passed with 95% Support out of 22 total voters
Support – 21 (78%)
Oppose – 1 (22%)
Registered Voters and Who Voted Can Be Found Here :Election Fingerprint
Resolution:
Assuming the local fire department doesn’t have saftey concerns, Friends of Zilker supports the expansion of Didactia Preschool from 2028 S. Lamar into the Adjacent building at 1507 Hether St.
Vote open date : Jan 29, 2017
Vote close date : Feb 8, 2017
Editor Update : Site plan now available – HERE
Land use determinations and private deed rrestrictions
Results: Passed with 85% Support out of 21 total voters
Resolution:
Support – 18 (85%)
Oppose – 3 (15%)
Registered Voters and Who Voted Can Be Found Here :Election Fingerprint
PREFACE : In response to punitive actions made against a property owner at 2003 Arpdale for an existing development that is perceived to be in conflict with private deed restrictions. This case is arbitrary given that multiple other similar conditions exist in the neighborhood and on the same street. Board of Adjustment Case information HERE.
VOTE : Friends of Zilker Neighborhood Association supports the following resolution that: Land use determinations shall be made based on City and neighborhood zoning and planning documents and private deed restrictions shall only be enforced through action in civil court.
Vote open date : Jan 29, 2017
Vote close date : Feb 8, 2017
Editor Update : Letter submitted to BOA is HERE.