It will be the tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi.

Given the House's wholesale change and the Senate's failure to vote on it yesterday, I assume it is dead.

If a platted subdivision is partially developed, you theoretically could partially vacate the plat of the undeveloped portion. But this requires all owners to sign off, which will rarely, if ever, happen.

I foresee problems with SB 15 limiting the change to unplatted lots. Zoning regulations should be uniform within a district. We'll now have zoning regulations that vary depending on whether a tract was platted on September 1, 2025.

This is the one I care about most. This will be a vast upzoning in Austin, particularly in conjunction with the single stairway reform which will make MF development more feasible on small commercial lots.

One perhaps unforeseen consequence of SB 15 (which cities will welcome) will be to push subdivision developers in a city's ETJ to seek annexation in order to avoid more stringent county street frontage/driveway rules.

status of sb 840? does it need another vote?

NB: I'm specifically referring to zoning regulations rather than the full suite of non-zoning land use regulations.

However, I think there are some instances where the angst over parking is sincere and not merely pretextual or a stand-in for exclusivity so I'll concede this may be a third category.

I've long argued that hoarding/monopolizing public amenities is a hallmark of NIMBYism but I think this impulse for exclusion is at bottom about enhancing the status of the neighborhood (much like exclusivity enhances the status of a country club).

I should add that site plans also trigger the requirement, but you don't need a site plan to build a SFR.

Newly platted SFR *subdivisions* must meet the drainage standard. (I.e., it's triggered by platting rather than building permit.)

In old neighborhoods without stormwater drains/channels, the streets themselves are used to convey stormwater. They have a finite capacity so IC is relevant there. Their capacity varies and so IC could vary but one can defend a uniform IC maximum on the ground of administrative simplicity.

New platted subdivisions are required to provide detention to meet the same standard. There obviously is not requirement to detain on each lot, but the drainage is accounted for subdivision-wide. Again, IC is not really pertinent.(Lots should drain front to back or back to front, not side to side.)

Not only that, but when accounting for flow across your lot, you must account for upstream development on the assumption that it is fully developed. But these tracts are also subject to the preexisting conditions standard so the city essentially requires you to overcompensate.

IC is not important at all for MF or commercial development (at least for drainage) because the general rule is that you must hold flow to from the lot to the preexisting condition (unless there is regional detention). So if you build more IC, you have to build a bigger detention pond.

Perhaps impervious cover restrictions where there is no public drainage structure (other than streets). Perhaps modest setbacks and height limits? Debatable. I can't think of much else.

He launched his meme coin three days before he was inaugurated to give the Russians a way to launder their payoffs.