Tag Archives: Zoning

Relevant to the work of the Zoning Committee

BCNA General Association Meeting 04-09-2019

BCNA General Association Meeting  04-09-2019

Hello neighbors–The next general membership meeting of the Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Association will be next Tuesday, April 9, beginning at 6:45 pm at the High Road on Dawson, 700 Dawson. Hope to see you there. Here is the currently envisioned agenda:

–6:45: Intros
–6:55: Event announcements
–7:00: Parks Committee update
–7:10: Call for volunteers for Communications and Traffic Safety & Parking Committees
–7:15: Zoning update, including review of vote on support for Board of Adjustment variance for 1301 S. 5th St.
–7:25: Green Pastures update
–7:35: Brief presentation on “Affordability Unlocked” zoning changes
–7:45: Adjourn

Hope to see you all there, thanks!–Jesse, BCNA Prez

Meeting Schedules:
BCNA Meeting Schedules:
BCNA General Association Meeting: 2ndTuesday, every other month
BCNA Steering Committee Meeting:1st Monday, each month
BCNA Zoning Committee Meeting: 3rd Monday each month
Meetings at The High Road, 6:45pm 700 Dawson Road,
Unless otherwise noted.

BCNA General Membership meeting April 10, 2018

The agenda is simple for the BCNA general membership meeting Tuesday April 10 starting at 6:45 at the High Road on Dawson.

We’ll begin with introductions and a few announcements.

7:00 we will commence a hopefully informative discussion regarding draft 3 of CodeNext and the BCNA’s position on that. I hope to have some information and a brief PowerPoint to start with. The steering committee has made a recommendation for BCNA’s position, which is below. However, this recommendation was not unanimous and all voices are welcome and will be heard before voting on the BCNA’s position. Thanks–Jesse

 

Here is the BCNA steering committee’s recommendation.  It is a moderate position that does not oppose CodeNext in its entirety and supports many aspects of the current draft.

1)  BCNA supports putting CodeNext on the ballot before being adopted.

2)  BCNA supports delaying the finalization of CodeNext until at least the end of summer, with extended public input and at least one interim rounds of  changes, and BCNA demands that the underlying data and analysis be immediately shared by the City with the community.

3)  BCNA supports the following aspects of the current draft of               CodeNext:
a) BCNA supports the overall reductions in land use restrictions resulting potential increases in housing  supply in the current draft, except for the specific  problems stated below.
b)  BCNA supports reducing unfair treatment of Bouldin and other older SF-3 neighborhoods by treating Bouldin and other such neighborhoods on a more equal  basis than current law.
c)   BCNA supports the increased freedom for home occupations, but some aspects of this increased freedom threaten to reduce affordability and are  inappropriate, as stated below.

4)  BCNA opposes the following aspects of the current draft of                CodeNext, and requests:
a)   The fee-in-lieu loopholes in affordability standards should be closed.
b)   One on-site parking space per housing unit should be required.
c)   BCNA requests some limits for visitor traffic for home occupations to be  maintained, and believes the new accessory uses and signage permitted for  residential areas go too far.
d)  The permit process changes that reduce public input and remove accountability by elected officials are not acceptable.
e)  The single-family attached loophole should be closed, and the treatment proposed for duplexes should be applied to single-family attached housing.
f)  The fee-in-lieu loopholes for sidewalk construction should be closed.

Garage Placement Tool Exhibits

The following PDFs have been added to the Bouldincreek.org media library to facilitate discussion at Tuesday’s meeting related to the intention and benefits of adopting this tool.

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/a/bouldincreek.org/file/d/1IGm2qggxzWw3plC3y8GAU0UsdKvQq_FV/view?usp=drivesdk” title=”Microsoft-Word-25-2-1604.docx.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” newwindow=”yes” style=”normal”]

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/a/bouldincreek.org/file/d/19-FfT3LsE8T4WFBJJO9e6n6HGGcdit7u/view?usp=drivesdk” title=”Garage Placement Explanatory Graphic” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” newwindow=”yes” style=”normal”]

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/a/bouldincreek.org/file/d/1oyzCBiInvDaUo2AnfT53XcaedJBtWHzU/view?usp=drivesdk” title=”Map of Adopters” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” newwindow=”yes” style=”normal”]

You can have your Porch, and setbacks too …

Will be interesting to see how this plays out in practice.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/01/planning-commission-oks-porch-change/

The idea is that a house on a corner lot can’t easily have a wrap-around porch because of lot-size limitations, so now the encroachment into the front setback (an encroachment which everyone who’s ever enjoyed a conversation on a shady porch with a neighbor can probably support) can wrap around to the side setback as well, encouraging a more “connected” style of home much like the traditional homes of yore.

Overall this seems like a good thing. But “what defines a porch?” will likely become the question. What do you think?