An overview of CodeNEXT Draft 3 by Bobby Levinski at the March meeting of the Lost Creek Civic Organization.

1. An Overview of
CodeNEXT: Draft 3
Presentation to the Lost Creek Civic Organization,
March 1, 2018

2. Quick Review of CodeNEXT:
 CodeNEXT is the current proposed rewrite to the City’s Land
Development Code
 Land DevelopmentCode addresses:
 Zoning (what can be built)
 Subdvisions (how many lots can be created)
 Environmental Protectionts (how do we protect our trees, water
quality, creeks, etc.)
 Parkland Dedication and Open Space (whether developers should
contribute towards parkland resources and preserve open space)
 Affordable Housing (what kind of housing is developed and
whether units must be set aside for lower-income households)
 Public Input Process (how residents can offer input into changes
within their neighborhoods)
 Meant to implement the City’s comprehensive plan

3. Wait. What is the Comprehensive Plan?
 In 2012, the City Council adopted our latest comprehensive plan
known as “Imagine Austin”
 Imagine Austin formally adopts the City’s overall policies and
provides guidance to the City Council and City Manager on how
they should (ps., it’s about more than just land use!)
 It incorporates the city’s adopted master plans (e.g., Strategic
Mobility Plan) and neighborhood plans (e.g., Oak Hill Combined
Neighborhood Plan)
 Growth Concept Map is an overall guide

5. Why are people so upset with
CodeNEXT?

6. Draft 2 was incomplete, inadequate and
poorly drafted.
 Entire sections of the draft code were missing (e.g., Chapter
23-8 (Signage), Chapter 23-11 (Technical Codes), and
Chapter 23-4D-8090 (Former Title 25 (F25) Zone standards)
 Terminology was muddled (e.g., the newly proposed zoning
category RM4A allows the development of “Rowhouse:
Large”, but no such building form is defined
 Standards were inconsistent from one section to the next
(e.g., ADUs appear to be capped at 1100 sq. ft. in some
sections and 1150 sq. ft. in others)
 No resource tracking changes from the current code to what
was proposed
 After 5 years and $8+ million, the public deserves a better
product
 Draft 3 is getting better, but we’re struggling to know what
is an error and what is intentional

7. General Topic Overview
 Residential Zoning
 Changes for Lost Creek
 Compatibility Standards
 Overall Growth
 Dark Skies
 Wildfire Risks
 Bars / Liquor Stores
 Parking
 Flooding

8. Residential Zones
 Currently, there are 8 existing “single-family” zoning districts, ranging from
RR (Rural Residence) to SF-6 (Highest Density Single-Family)
 Under CNv3, there are 17 different “R” zoning categories
 Lot sizes have generally been reduced
 SF-2 (50’ min lot width)R1B (45’ min lot width)
 SF-3 (50’ min lot width)R2B (25’ min lot width
 Extra provisions to narrow lots

9. Residential Zones (cont.)

10. What is changing in Lost Creek?
Generally:
 I-SF-2R1B (lot sizes reduced
to 5,000 sq ft; would allow a
house and an accessory
dwelling unit (“ADU”) on a lot
greater than 15,000 sq. ft.)
 I-RRRM1A (multi-family up
to 12 units/acre as base; 30
units/acre with affordable
housing bonus)
 LOMU2A-A (multi-family up
to 18 units/acre as base; 36
units/acre with affordable
housing bonus)
Anticipated Answer to Question: City does not enforce private deed restrictions.

11. Compatibility Standards
 CodeNEXT Draft 3 would eliminate all
compatibility standards beyond 100 ft
from a single-family residence
 Under current compatibility standards, a
120 ft. tall building would have to be 540
ft. from a single-family residence
 In some cases, CodeNEXT Draft 3 would
allow an 80 ft (7-8 stories tall) tower up
to 50 ft from a single-family home (see,
e.g., RM4A)
 Massive increases in entitlements without
any exchange of community benefit
Current Compatibility Standards
40’ height at 100’
CodeNEXT V3
Compatibility
Unlimited height at 100’;
shown 120’ tall

12. CodeNEXT Development Projections for
Next 10 years

13. Are Dark Skies Addressed?
 23-4E-2: Outdoor Lighting addresses some outdoor lighting issues
 Only applies to developments that trigger a site plan
 Light fixtures are required to be fully shielded and have full cut off
 Flood-lighting allowed through alternative compliance
 Illuminations of flag poles and signs allowed if not aimed “excessively” at the
sky or onto neighboring properties
 No specific “Dark Skies” overlay

14. What about wildfire mitigation?
 There have been some tweaks included in CNv3 to include modifications for
wildfire risks:
 Adds wildfire hazards as consideration for right-of-way configuration (23-9B-1080 )
 Subdivisions in wildfire risk areas will require two access points (23-9H-1030)
 Additional conversation needed on Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Code
 No currently part of CodeNEXT; being considered as a technical code
 Addresses building standards and permitting review
 Up to 60% of the City would fall under its purview

15. Bars / Nightclubs
 Under current code, bars / nightclubs outside CBD would need both
CS-1 zoning and get a conditional use permit (CUP) approved by the
Land Use Commission
 Under CodeNEXT Draft 2, Bars / Nightclubs split into two categories:
 Level 1: No outdoor seating; No late-hours permits
 Level 2: Outdoor Seating; Open until 2am

16. Parking
 Residential. On-site parking requirement is cut to one parking space per
dwelling unit - half of what is required today for single family homes.
 Commercial. At the same time that CodeNEXT is increasing the volume of
commercial traffic generated by zoning districts in and around
neighborhoods, it is reducing the parking requirement for those uses.
*These reduced parking requirements
will be eligible for additional
cumulative reductions of up to 40%
for a variety of reasons such as
proximity to a corridor (e.g. a major
arterial), or bike racks or off-site
parking 1,000 feet away.

17. Flooding
 Some improvements:
 requiring redevelopment to address drainage
 Must match peak flow for undeveloped conditions (does not address volume)
 Green infrastructure (beneficial use of stormwater)
 Engineer certification required to prove new single-family wouldn’t “flood your
neighbor”
 Some areas of disagreement:
 Impervious cover (no reductions; location placed; and functional equivalencies)
 Review/standards applicable to 3-6 units
 Should standards vary depending on known localized flooding conditions?

18. Questions?
 Additional resources at: http://www.communitynotcommodity.com/
 Please feel free to contact me:
 Bobby Levinski, 512-636-7649 or bobby.levinski@gmail.com
 Please contact with your comments:
 Council Member Ellen Troxclair (District 8): 512-978-2108 or
Ellen.Troxclair@austintexas.gov
 Mayor Steve Adler (At-Large): 512-978-2100 or Steve.Adler@austintexas.gov
 Planning Commission & Zoning and Platting Commission: Staff Liaison Andrew
Rivera at Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov