AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[lonewolf]

https://www.oakhillparkway.com/connect/updates

[gillynova]

i35 South

[Mopacs]

Flyover rendering of the new 183 NW express lanes. Pretty significant bridgework at 183 and Mopac.

• Video Link

[IluvATX]

I’m not a huge fan of 18 lane wide freeways, but that’s a pretty neat video.

[gillynova]

Thanks for the find Mopacs!

[Lobotomizer]

The city of Austin no longer requires parking in any residential or commercial developments citywide.

The city council voted to remove parking minimums from the land development code.

Bravo!

[Echostatic]

Austin is now the largest city in the country without parking mandates. Great work from a council that would never have approved something of this scale just a few years ago.

[Urbannizer]

Soil testing on East & West 3rd near Congress, but what for?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Austin is now the largest city in the country without parking mandates. Great work from a council that would never have approved something of this scale just a few years ago.

Austin, San Jose, San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Raleigh, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Buffalo, Bridgeport, and Richmond are the major core cities that have eliminated parking mandates altogether. Wilmington, Gainesville, Gary, Bend and Salem, Berkeley, South Bend, Albany, Chapel Hill, Fayetteville, Lexington, and Cambridge are other notables. Suburban centers Norman, Beaverton, and Tigard also have no parking minimums. Some also have enacted parking maximums.

https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/

We also now have:

• 3 units by right on every lot
• decrease to 2,500 minimum lot sizes
• exempt triplexes and quads from site plan review

We still have more to accomplish:

• removal of compatibility requirements
• relaxed unrelated occupancy rules
• sidewalks everywhere
• raising single family maximum height/floor count to 48/3.5
• establish ADUs by-right for all single family home zoning categories (not just SF-3, SF-5, and SF-6), and allow them in basement units, attic units, garage conversions, and separate structures.
• legalize home-based businesses city-wide
• parking maximums
• enforced underground-only parking downtown
• raised floor count and by-right unit counts for all parcels within 1/2 mile of (6 floors and 18 units), 1/4 mile of (8 floors and 24 units), and adjacent to (12 floors and 36 units) all fixed rail stations of Project Connect and MetroRail with density bonuses for affordable units.
• raising maximum lot coverages
• reducing side setbacks
• allowing new areas of zero-lot line development
• bike lanes on every major road in the core part of the city separated by built-in planting strips from vehicular traffic
• public education for all of the current reforms
• financing structures at the local level

https://streetsillustrated.seattle.g...ection-design/

[gillynova]

Should've asked them

[Enghum]

That is right where the new route for project connect rail will pass so probably that.

[Urbannizer]

Originally Posted by Enghum

That is right where the new route for project connect rail will pass so probably that.

Thanks!

[H2O]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Austin, San Jose, San Francisco, Boston, Portland, Raleigh, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Buffalo, Bridgeport, and Richmond are the major core cities that have eliminated parking mandates altogether. Wilmington, Gainesville, Gary, Bend and Salem, Berkeley, South Bend, Albany, Chapel Hill, Fayetteville, Lexington, and Cambridge are other notables. Suburban centers Norman, Beaverton, and Tigard also have no parking minimums. Some also have enacted parking maximums.

https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map/

We also now have:

• 3 units by right on every lot
• decrease to 2,500 minimum lot sizes
• exempt triplexes and quads from site plan review

We still have more to accomplish:

• removal of compatibility requirements
• relaxed unrelated occupancy rules
• sidewalks everywhere
• raising single family maximum height/floor count to 48/3.5
• establish ADUs by-right for all single family home zoning categories (not just SF-3, SF-5, and SF-6), and allow them in basement units, attic units, garage conversions, and separate structures.
• legalize home-based businesses city-wide
• parking maximums
• enforced underground-only parking downtown
• raised floor count and by-right unit counts for all parcels within 1/2 mile of (6 floors and 18 units), 1/4 mile of (8 floors and 24 units), and adjacent to (12 floors and 36 units) all fixed rail stations of Project Connect and MetroRail with density bonuses for affordable units.
• raising maximum lot coverages
• reducing side setbacks
• allowing new areas of zero-lot line development
• bike lanes on every major road in the core part of the city separated by built-in planting strips from vehicular traffic
• public education for all of the current reforms
• financing structures at the local level

https://streetsillustrated.seattle.g...ection-design/

HOME1 (2 and 3 units) has not yet passed. It is still in the public consultation phase https://www.speakupaustin.org/v1473

HOME2 (small lot subdivision) is a future consultation along with some of the others on your list such as compatibility and residential light site plan.

ADUs will no longer exist as a separate land use category because all lots city-wide will allow at least two units up to 1,100 sf in all zones under HOME1

Relaxed occupancy rules are part of HOME1

I think reduced side and rear setbacks / zero lot line changes will need to be part of HOME2 to make the minimum lot size effective

Bike lanes / shared use trails are being implemented on man major corridors through the mobility bonds

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

ADUs will no longer exist as a separate land use category because all lots city-wide will allow at least two units up to 1,100 sf in all zones under HOME1

ADU is effectively retained separately, because of that 1100 limit. That distinguishes it from duplex, which is two unit use allowed everywhere but without the 1100 limit (but with the connection requirement).

So it's not called ADU, but there's still

"attached two unit"(duplex)
and
"detached two unit, with one unit limited to 1100" (ADU)

both are allowed on every SF1/2/3


And yes, that's needlessly complicated. It also means that we're not legalizing attached ADUs, internal ADUs, etc. (at least when doing only 2 units, if you can squeeze in 3 there's no form requirements).

Originally Posted by H2O

Bike lanes / shared use trails are being implemented on man major corridors through the mobility bonds

Interesting thing about that (to bring things back around to transportation) we're moving way too slow on actually using those bonds, especially for bikes/trails

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=418017

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...31027-mobc.htm

The 2016 bonds were supposed to be finished in 8 years, they're currently tracking for _12_

2020 were supposed to be done in 6 years, currently projected for 9.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

ADU is effectively retained separately, because of that 1100 limit. That distinguishes it from duplex, which is two unit use allowed everywhere but without the 1100 limit (but with the connection requirement).

So it's not called ADU, but there's still

"attached two unit"(duplex)
and
"detached two unit, with one unit limited to 1100" (ADU)

both are allowed on every SF1/2/3


And yes, that's needlessly complicated. It also means that we're not legalizing attached ADUs, internal ADUs, etc. (at least when doing only 2 units, if you can squeeze in 3 there's no form requirements).



Interesting thing about that (to bring things back around to transportation) we're moving way too slow on actually using those bonds, especially for bikes/trails

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=418017

https://www.austintexas.gov/departme...31027-mobc.htm

The 2016 bonds were supposed to be finished in 8 years, they're currently tracking for _12_

2020 were supposed to be done in 6 years, currently projected for 9.

In the proposal, connection requirements are removed from Duplex and locational requirements are removed from 2-unit. So anything goes in either and should include internal units if fire code is met. The difference between the two uses is that Duplex is unlimited square footage and has a minimum lot size of 5,750 sf. Two-unit does not have a minimum lot size (as little as 2,500 sf if HOME2 passes) but restricts one unit to 1,100 sf.

Agreed the slow pace of corridor improvements is concerning. Progress has slowed to a crawl after the re-org that eliminated the Corridor Office.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

In the proposal, connection requirements are removed from Duplex and locational requirements are removed from 2-unit. So anything goes in either and should include internal units if fire code is met. The difference between the two uses is that Duplex is unlimited square footage and has a minimum lot size of 5,750 sf. Two-unit does not have a minimum lot size (as little as 2,500 sf if HOME2 passes) but restricts one unit to 1,100 sf.

They removed a lot of the requirements on duplex (e.g. length of connection) but they're still required to be connected. They have to have a common roof and be a connected building with no gap

(1)The two units must have a common roof.
(2)At least one of the two units must have a front porch that faces the front
street and an entry to the dwelling unit, except that units located on a
corner lot must each have a front porch that faces a separate street and an
entry to the dwelling unit.
(3)The two units may not be separated by a breezeway, carport, or other open
building element.

They removed the _location_ requirements on ADU (the ADU could now be in front, and could be the old existing, small house). But they still require them to be unconnected.

(4)Each dwelling unit must be in a separate structure.
(5) The dwelling units may be connected by a covered walkway.

There's no zoning requirement on how disconnected they have to be, but I think by fire code it may have to be 10 feet.

So yeah, not attached or internal ADU (in 2 unit). You can do a duplex instead, but then you have to meet any additional requirements thereof (porch requirements, lot size, lot width, etc.)

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=418021

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They removed a lot of the requirements on duplex (e.g. length of connection) but they're still required to be connected. They have to have a common roof and be a connected building with no gap

(1)The two units must have a common roof.
(2)At least one of the two units must have a front porch that faces the front
street and an entry to the dwelling unit, except that units located on a
corner lot must each have a front porch that faces a separate street and an
entry to the dwelling unit.
(3)The two units may not be separated by a breezeway, carport, or other open
building element.

They removed the _location_ requirements on ADU (the ADU could now be in front, and could be the old existing, small house). But they still require them to be unconnected.

(4)Each dwelling unit must be in a separate structure.
(5) The dwelling units may be connected by a covered walkway.

There's no zoning requirement on how disconnected they have to be, but I think by fire code it may have to be 10 feet.

So yeah, not attached or internal ADU (in 2 unit). You can do a duplex instead, but then you have to meet any additional requirements thereof (porch requirements, lot size, lot width, etc.)

https://services.austintexas.gov/edi....cfm?id=418021

I see. I was relying on the summary rather than the red line markup. The summary is definitely misleading on those points.

[gillynova]

183 North



Interchange



I 35 South Austin

[The ATX]

The 183 expansion will help get the Cedar Park commuters into downtown quicker since they pulled out of CapMetro a few years ago.

[The ATX]

We are trading a downtown double deck for a new one in South Austin.