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.
|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
|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||
|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||
23-7D-1030 C pdf 32