Daycares - Revision history

Kaz: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T21:58:50Z

Recommendations

Kaz: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T21:37:54Z

Recommendations

Kaz: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T20:40:27Z

Recommendations

Kaz: /* Recommendations */

2017-06-04T20:17:03Z

Recommendations

Kaz at 20:08, 4 June 2017

2017-06-04T20:08:56Z

Kaz at 20:02, 4 June 2017

2017-06-04T20:02:18Z

Kaz: Daycare recommendations for CodeNEXT

2017-06-04T20:01:03Z

Daycare recommendations for CodeNEXT

New page

“We want to see more people of all ages in the heart of our city ([http://www.aura-atx.org/what_we_believe]). “

High child care costs in Austin make it harder for families to live in the city. CodeNEXT must allow child care, of all sizes, all around the city in order to facilitate abundant day care access to all. Allowing day cares off of major corridors is imperative; children face no greater threat than cars. Many daycares are found in interior neighborhoods, allow families to easily walk with a stroller or wagon to bring their children to daycare. This is critical to ensuring families are welcomed in all areas.

In [[CodeNEXT]], coops are defined ([https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-2-administration-and-procedures Chapter 23-2 2M-2, page 5.]) in a way which no existing co-op in Austin would qualify. The following definition for the cooperative use is a more appropriate one: “A housing arrangement in which residents share expenses and ownership, and in which all profits or surpluses are allocated to purposes that benefit current or future residents.”

This definition is sourced from a combination of the Texas Business Organization Code and Boulder, Colorado’s definition of a housing cooperative as written in that city’s land development code. Rather than focusing on arbitrary characteristics such as unit numbers and ownership allocation that comprise the current draft, our proposed definition emphasizes what makes a cooperative a cooperative by focusing on its management, profit, and savings distribution model.

If we are serious about using all the tools at our disposal to combat rising housing costs and concentrated development that feeds gentrification, cooperatives should be allowed the same development opportunities throughout [[T3]] zoning as cottage courts, duplexes, and other missing middle subtypes. Currently cooperative housing is available only in parts of [[T4]] and above--and the application of the [[T4]] category is unfortunately severely limited in this current draft.

Although it is positive to see cooperative housing as an allowed use in the non-transect zones, there are ways that permitting could be more accessible. Cooperative housing should be a by-right use in the [[LMDR]], [[MDR]], and [[SF-3]] through [[SF-6]] zoning areas. The current requirement of obtaining a [[conditional use permit]] puts the application of affordable housing in the hands [[neighborhood planning contact teams]]. Instead, it is a City-wide issue that can ensure the creation of abundant new options. Cooperative housing should be given a path to development through a [[Minor Use Permit]] in [[VLDR |Very Low Density Residential]], [[LDR |Low Density Residential]], SF-1, and SF-2 zoning and a [[Conditional Use Permit]] in [[RR |Rural Residential]].

We look forward to the release of details about the [[Density Bonus]] Program. Cooperatives should be explicitly included as recipients of increased density in the areas where it is to be applied, in return for providing the requisite amount of affordability.

== Recommendations ==

* There is not a single Co-op in Austin that would be allowed under the current definition of Cooperative Housing in CodeNEXT
* A better definition would be “A housing arrangement in which residents share expenses and ownership, and in which all profits or surpluses are allocated to purposes that benefit current or future residents.”
* Cooperative Housing should be allowed anywhere residential use is allowed.
* Cooperative Housing should be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in Rural Residential.
* Cooperative Housing should be allowed by Minor Use Permit in Very Low Density, Low Density, SF-1, and SF-2
* Cooperative Housing housing should be allowed by right in Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
* Cooperative Housing should be included in the Density Bonus Programs as a recipients of increased density in exchange for providing affordable housing.

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 | Day cares should be exempt from parking requirements. ||
   pdf pg 127, 135, 143, 151, 159, 167, 175, 183,
 |}

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 |-
-| Small daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
+| Small day cares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
   pdf pg 108
 |-
-| Large daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
+| Large day cares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
-  pdf pg 108, 114, 121, 127,
+  pdf pg 108, 114, 121, 127, 129, 137, 145, 161,
 |-
-| Commercial daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
+| Commercial day cares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
-  pdf pg 108
+  pdf pg 108, 114, 121, 127, 129, 137, 145, 161,   169, 177, 291
 |-
-| Daycares should be exempt from parking requirements. ||
+| Day cares should be exempt from parking requirements. ||
-  pdf pg 127
+  pdf pg 127, 135, 143, 151, 159, 167, 175, 183,
 |}

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 | Small daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
   pdf pg 108
 |-
-|Requiring ADU's to fit in a 28x24 footprint is overly restrictive.  Considering that front houses have irregular shapes and other site constraints (trees, floodplain, drainage and other easements).  If an ADU is under 1100 sq ft the ADU should be able to not abide by the 28x24 footprint.  This would also allow 1 story 1100 sq ft ADU's.
+| Large daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
-|23-4D-2090 Section D page 32  pdf 116
+  pdf pg 108, 114, 121, 127,
 |-
-|The side, rear, and front setbacks leave very little room for an ADU on most lots. In particular, the 20’ rear setback is the same for the primary structure and the ADU where alleys do not exist.
+| Commercial daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects ||
-The rear setback should be five or ten foot setbacks for the ADU. The code should encourage ADUs by allowing for smaller setbacks when an ADU is built.
+  pdf pg 108
 |-
-| Requiring parking behind the front facade of the building should be taken out. It will make it difficult to build ADU's and keep the existing house since currently many houses have parking pads in front of the front facade of the building.  Most central Austin lots don't have room for rear parking for the front house and a ADU on the back part of the lot.  Additionally this will increase impervious cover and hurt affordability by requiring longer driveways.
+| Daycares should be exempt from parking requirements. ||
+  pdf pg 127
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 4 June 2017
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* Commercial daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects		* Commercial daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects
	* Small, Large, & Commercial daycares should not have parking requirements		* Small, Large, & Commercial daycares should not have parking requirements
		+
		+	== Recommendations ==
		+
		+	{\| class=wikitable
		+
		+	!Comment \|\| Page/Section
		+
		+
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\| Small daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects \|\|
		+	pdf pg 108
		+
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\|All the minimum lot depths should be eliminated or reduced to 50 feet. Under the current rules it seems like a 90 foot deep lot cannot have any of the primary building types on it.
		+	\|23-4D-2090 Section D page 32 pdf 116
		+
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\|Requiring ADU's to fit in a 28x24 footprint is overly restrictive. Considering that front houses have irregular shapes and other site constraints (trees, floodplain, drainage and other easements). If an ADU is under 1100 sq ft the ADU should be able to not abide by the 28x24 footprint. This would also allow 1 story 1100 sq ft ADU's.
		+	\|23-4D-2090 Section D page 32 pdf 116
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\|The side, rear, and front setbacks leave very little room for an ADU on most lots. In particular, the 20’ rear setback is the same for the primary structure and the ADU where alleys do not exist.
		+	The rear setback should be five or ten foot setbacks for the ADU. The code should encourage ADUs by allowing for smaller setbacks when an ADU is built.
		+	\|23-4D-2090 Section E page 33 pdf 117
		+
		+
		+	\|-
		+	\| Requiring parking behind the front facade of the building should be taken out. It will make it difficult to build ADU's and keep the existing house since currently many houses have parking pads in front of the front facade of the building. Most central Austin lots don't have room for rear parking for the front house and a ADU on the back part of the lot. Additionally this will increase impervious cover and hurt affordability by requiring longer driveways.
		+
		+	Requiring lots with an alley to only have parking accessed from the Alley should be taken out. This should remain as an option and not a requirement. This will increase impervious cover and hurt affordability by in many cases requiring longer driveways. In addition this will not be possible in many cases because of trees, floodplain and other site constraints. It will also make ADU's more difficult because the back of the lot is where most ADU's are placed. Additionally by increasing impervious cover it will be difficult to do much on these lots besides have a primary house and a long parking driveway from the back of the lot to the front house.
		+
		+
		+	\|23-4D-2090 Section I page 34 pdf 118
		+
		+
		+	\|}

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 High childcare costs in Austin make it harder for families to live in the city. CodeNEXT must allow childcare, of all sizes, all around the city in order to facilitate abundant day care access to all. Allowing day cares off of major corridors is imperative; children face no greater threat than cars.  Many daycares are found in interior neighborhoods, allow families to easily walk with a stroller or wagon to bring their children to daycare. This is critical to ensuring families are welcomed in all areas.
 Daycares of various sizes are a permitted use in CodeNEXT. CodeNEXT prescribes parking minimums as well.
 Small (<= 7 children) are P in transects: T3NE.WL and up, (all transects)
-Large (>7 children & <20 children) are CUP in transects: T3NE.WL, T3NE, T3N.DS, T3N.IS (both IS & IS-O), T4N (both IS & IS-O), T5N (both SS & SS-O); permitted in T4; permitted in T5U.SS, T5U, T5MS, & T6U;
+*Small (<= 7 children) are P in transects: T3NE.WL and up, (all transects)
 Commercial: unpermitted use below T3N.IS; for T3N.IS, T4N, T5N.SS, unpermitted in IS, SS  categories (respectively), CUP in IS-O and SS-O;  permitted in T4(MS); unpermitted in T5U.SS, T5U; permitted in T5MS & T6U,
 Parking: 1 per 500sqft in T3N.IS, T4N.IS, T4N.SS, T4MS, T5N, T5U.SS, T5U, & T5MS; no parking requirements in T6U
@@ Line 14: / Line 19: @@
 == Recommendations ==
-* There is not a single Co-op in Austin that would be allowed under the current definition of Cooperative Housing in CodeNEXT
+* Small daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects
+* Large daycares should be permitted by-right in all transects

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 “We want to see more people of all ages in the heart of our city ([http://www.aura-atx.org/what_we_believe]). “
-High child care costs in Austin make it harder for families to live in the city. CodeNEXT must allow child care, of all sizes, all around the city in order to facilitate abundant day care access to all. Allowing day cares off of major corridors is imperative; children face no greater threat than cars.  Many daycares are found in interior neighborhoods, allow families to easily walk with a stroller or wagon to bring their children to daycare. This is critical to ensuring families are welcomed in all areas.
+High childcare costs in Austin make it harder for families to live in the city. CodeNEXT must allow childcare, of all sizes, all around the city in order to facilitate abundant day care access to all. Allowing day cares off of major corridors is imperative; children face no greater threat than cars.  Many daycares are found in interior neighborhoods, allow families to easily walk with a stroller or wagon to bring their children to daycare. This is critical to ensuring families are welcomed in all areas.
-In [[CodeNEXT]], coops are defined ([https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-2-administration-and-procedures Chapter 23-2 2M-2, page 5.]) in a way which no existing co-op in Austin would qualify. The following definition for the cooperative use is a more appropriate one:  “A housing arrangement in which residents share expenses and ownership, and in which all profits or surpluses are allocated to purposes that benefit current or future residents.”
+Parking: 1 per 500sqft in T3N.IS, T4N.IS, T4N.SS, T4MS, T5N, T5U.SS, T5U, & T5MS; no parking requirements in T6U
-This definition is sourced from a combination of the Texas Business Organization Code and Boulder, Colorado’s definition of a housing cooperative as written in that city’s land development code. Rather than focusing on arbitrary characteristics such as unit numbers and ownership allocation that comprise the current draft, our proposed definition emphasizes what makes a cooperative a cooperative by focusing on its management, profit, and savings distribution model.
 == Recommendations ==
 * There is not a single Co-op in Austin that would be allowed under the current definition of Cooperative Housing in CodeNEXT
-* A better definition would be “A housing arrangement in which residents share expenses and ownership, and in which all profits or surpluses are allocated to purposes that benefit current or future residents.”