City Council approves phase two of ‘site plan lite’

City Council has passed phase two of “site plan lite” – an ordinance amending development regulations for residential re-subdivisions and multifamily residential site developments of five to 16 units. The final version of the ordinance was passed with five amendments and was approved by 10 members of the dais, with Council Member Marc Duchen voting no.

This process was initiated in late 2022 as an effort to accelerate city plans to create more “missing middle” housing, a term used to describe medium-density housing between larger, detached homes and higher-density apartment buildings. Council Member Paige Ellis authored the original resolution directing city staff to create a procedure for developments of three to 16 units. The intent was to speed up the residential review processes for these midsize options, starting with triplexes and fourplexes. At the time, projects larger than duplexes were subject to the lengthier processes that applied to larger multifamily developments.

In July 2023, Council adopted phase one of this initiative, establishing a site plan exemption for projects smaller than five units. Also in 2023, Council approved a resolution directing staff to amend subdivision regulations to support the creation of infill lots in existing subdivisions. The changes approved on Thursday would modify regulations for certain residential re-subdivisions to facilitate infill development.

The recently approved ordinance also addresses the second part of the 2022 direction and is intended to streamline the processes for residential site plans consisting of five to 16 units. It also creates a new section of city code that modifies the definition of “small” projects – which will now include development applications for residential infill projects – to establish drainage regulations applicable to these projects, and to adjust impervious cover assumptions.

Leading up to the vote on March 6, Ellis worked in a subquorum with Council members José Velásquez, Chito Vela and Ryan Alter. Together, they brought forward five amendments to the proposal, all of which were adopted.

• Velásquez’s first amendment directs the city manager to incorporate key metrics related to residential infill projects in the annual HOME report.

“(This amendment) ensures that we are tracking the impact of our housing policies in a clear and transparent way. … We will gain valuable insights into production of missing middle housing and the effectiveness of our right sized drainage regulations,” Velásquez said.

• Velásquez’s second amendment directs the city manager to have the Watershed Protection Department report back to the Housing & Planning Committee in June on the process and drainage criteria manual changes committed to by staff. 

“Timely implementation of these changes is key to balancing housing growth and responsible stormwater management,” Velásquez said.

• Vela’s first amendment increases the minimum threshold for drainage review for resubdivision from 11,500 square feet to 17,780 square feet.

“This amendment focuses on the subdivision of smaller lots and … essentially eliminating any kind of drainage review for subdivisions under 17,780 square feet,” Vela said. “Right now, single-family homes are exempt from any kind of drainage review. … Once you get to that three units or higher … the process becomes very complex and very expensive. We’ve set it at that 17,780 number because if you take 45 percent of that number, you end up with 8,000 (square feet) of impervious cover. And in a separate section of the code, (this) would trigger a water quality review. So what we’ve done is tried to align the drainage reviews and the water quality reviews at 8,000 square feet of impervious cover.”

• Vela’s second amendment directs the city manager to explore simplifying the Regional Stormwater Management Plan for projects up to 16 units that do not qualify for the modified drainage standards to allow payment to be calculated more simply, based on units or square feet. The amendment also directs the city manager to explore the feasibility of additional fee-in-lieu options for small infill projects (up to 16 units) for any required new infrastructure or upgrades in the public right of way or designed to service multiple properties. Staff will report back to the Housing and Planning Committee and Planning Commission.

• Alter’s amendment directs the city manager to to provide the permitting costs, including infill development standards and review processes, for a range of housing types: one to four units; resubdivision of Single-Family 1, 2, and 3 properties; five to 16 units; and 16 and greater units. The amendment also directs the incorporation of stakeholder feedback. The city manager will report back to Council by July 1.

The final version of the ordinance approved by Council also incorporates additional updates from city staff strengthening some drainage regulations that raised concerns within the community.

Bobby Levinski, speaking on behalf of Save Our Springs Alliance, said he still had concerns, specifically regarding the site plan changes.

“When drainage isn’t addressed, the combined runoff can overwhelm existing infrastructure and creeks, especially in areas already prone to localized and lot to lot flooding, and especially where creeks are experiencing significant erosion,” Levinski said, asking that Council remove areas of localized flooding, limit impervious cover to 45 percent and provide resources to low-income communities that may encounter flooding as a result of the new regulations.

Several Council members echoed some of these fears but still supported the proposed changes, noting that they wanted to continue the discussion about flooding.

“I agree with a supermajority of this Council and the prior Council that we need to take as much action as possible to reduce the cost of housing for renters and homeowners. At the same time, I’m increasingly aware of our City’s documented needs for major drainage infrastructure investments,” Council Member Mike Siegel said in a recent City Council Message Board post. He highlighted drainage issues in District 7’s Brentwood and Crestview neighborhoods.

“I hope we can prioritize drainage infrastructure in our next bond issuance, including a commitment to conduct drainage engineering studies across the City.”

Duchen said on the dais that his “no” vote was in part due to concerns about the cost benefit, and in part in response to concerns raised by Save Our Springs Alliance about potential flooding.

“I do feel like there might be some opportunities,” Duchen noted, “not now, but going forward, to figure out, ‘How do you carve out particularly sensitive or vulnerable areas in town that have significant flooding issues?’”

Duchen added that he was concerned about how climate change could compound the existing flood risk.

In her closing remarks, Ellis voiced her support for the potential incorporation of drainage improvements in the next bond package. Ellis also expressed her gratitude for the collaboration on the multiyear process she had initiated.

“We have to look at the impacts that our policies have on people upstream, downstream, south along I-35. … How can we be stronger as a region? How can we do better at not outpricing people from our community so they have to move further and further out and then have these really long hourlong commutes each direction? That’s really hard on families. And when I look at certain policies that say, ‘You can have a really big house or duplex, but someone can’t put a fiveplex with that same amount of impervious cover,’ that’s the problem I’m trying to solve for,” Ellis said.

“I think we’re getting to a really good place, and I want to see how this information comes back to us … to evaluate: How useful are these initiatives? Who is using them, (and) are there any blind spots that we need to be aware of?”

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.