Miscellaneous Issues
This is a catch-all page for CodeNEXT suggestions on subjects that may or may not have their own articles yet. Feel free to leave comment suggestions here if you're not sure where they go.
Recommendations
| Comment | Page/Section | Issues | Opposing Commenter, if any |
|---|---|---|---|
| We should add an item to factors the historic commission should be able to consider which is how the new use compared to the current use helps to solve our housing shortage. This should not be the only factor to be considered but it should be allowed to be one consideration |
23-7D-2020 B pdf 38 |
Historic Preservation |
Preservation Austin
|
| At the very top Preservation Austin has a comment on the heading. In their comment they want the applicant to do historic review instead of the city so the applicant takes on liability. This means that no one will do a demo because they don't know how to do things like "newspaper research". Additionally no one will want to take on the liability. This means if Preservation Austin finds the first person to burp on Youtube lived in the house they can sue the applicant. I am sure they would prefer this because suing the city is much more difficult. This would have a chilling effect on new housing. I would not respond to Preservation Austin but make a new comment. |
23-7D-1020 pdf 30 |
Historic Preservation | Preservation Austin
|
| Historic review should be trigged by a property being 80 years old not 50. Preservation Austin didn't comment here but elsewhere they argue it should be reduced to 45 elsewhere | Historic Preservation |
| |
| The status quo should be maintained. This encourages us to look for historic structures throughout the city. Not wait until a demo permit is issued and then run out and try to make it historic. This leads to affordability issues because it adds more delays to an already complicated entitlement process. Instead we should look for historic structures neighborhood by neighborhood instead of waiting until the permit process has already started | Historic Preservation |
| |
| Preservation Austin has a huge number of comments on something called "Demolition by Neglect". They want harsher penalities etc. Basically if Preservation Austin is able to declare a place historic now the owner must pay the taxes and the upkeep. They are unable to redevelop the property and the upkeep can be expensive because of the rules about how the property must be maintained. Because of the high cost this can frequently lead to financial ruin (like the family in Clarksville that owns the neighborhood diner). This might be a reach but we should ask the city to pay for maintenance when a property is zoned historic against an owners wishes. This would make the city only want to declare properties historic that were truly historic. | 23-7D-1030 C pdf 34 | Historic Preservation |
Preservation Austin
|
| Currently many houses have gravel or packed earth driveways. Any type of new development (addition, ADU) can have the city require a new driveway. Either 1) this should not be required if it impacts the 1/2 critical root zone and the current gravel drive can remain in place (although a new parking pad can be required) 2) or we should allow a driveway over the 1/2 critical root zone. | 23-3C-2020 D-2 pdf 32 | General Planning Standards |
Allandale |
| Currently many houses have gravel or packed earth driveways. Any type of new development (addition, ADU) can have the city require a new driveway. Either 1) this should not be required if it impacts the 1/2 critical root zone and the current gravel drive can remain in place (although a new parking pad can be required) 2) or we should allow a driveway over the 1/2 critical root zone. | 23-3C-3020 A-3 pdf 35 | General Planning Standards |
Allandale |
| This rule would seem to completely prevent entitling land in some cases if an CEF is located nearby. Instead a easement should be placed on the land near the CEF to prevent development on that part of the land. | 23-3D-5030 B pdf 78 | General Planning Standards |
|
