Difference between revisions of "Miscellaneous Issues"

From AURAWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
|-
 
|-
| Lot Depth should be reduced to a maximum of 75 feetIf the required lot depth is 100 feet this means that a corner lot that is 95 feet wide and 500 feet deep cannot be further subdivided.  This is a complete waste of space in the urban core core ||  
+
| 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 liabilityThis 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.  ||  
[[T3NE.WL]] 23-4D-2080 page 19 pdf 103 [https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-4-zoning-code#p103 23-4D 2080] 
+
23-7D-1020  pdf 30
  
 +
|-
 +
| 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 ||
 +
23-7D-1020 C-1 pdf 30
  
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 19:51, 27 May 2017

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


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 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

23-7D-1020 C-1 pdf 30