Austin replacement site plan: swapping a pre-1988 approval for a new one
A trade: a modern plan, on the old plan's envelope
Some Austin sites still run on a zoning site plan approved before 1 January 1988. §25-5-64 lets the director swap one of those for an ordinary administrative site plan — but only on terms that keep the new plan inside the old one's footprint.
The trade is worth naming plainly. You get a current, administratively approved plan. You do not get to grow. Nine of the ten conditions are ceilings taken from the plan being replaced, and the tenth forbids touching its conditions of approval.
| Measure | What §25-5-64 allows |
|---|---|
| Impervious cover | May not exceed the zoning site plan |
| Building coverage | May not exceed the zoning site plan |
| Building height | May exceed by up to six feet |
| Trees (total caliper inches) | May not be less, unless the city arborist approves a decrease |
| Use intensity | May not be more intense than the zoning site plan permitted |
| Conditions of approval | May not change |
§25-5-64(A)(4) to (10). Height is the only measure permitted to rise.
Six feet is the only slack in the whole section
Read the list of conditions and one number stands out: building height may exceed the old approval by up to six feet. Everything else is a hard ceiling or a hard floor.
Six feet is not an invitation to add a storey — it is roughly the depth of a modern roof assembly, a parapet, or the mechanical screening that a 1980s plan never contemplated. The allowance exists so that building a current-code roof over an old footprint does not by itself disqualify the swap.
The traffic analysis follows you either way
Subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) between them close every gap. If the original application came with a traffic impact analysis, its assumptions and conclusions must still be valid — and if they are not, an addendum must show impacts will be adequately mitigated. If there was no traffic impact analysis, the applicant has to demonstrate adequate mitigation anyway.
So the absence of an old study is not an advantage. A plan approved in 1985 with no traffic work attached still has to answer the traffic question now, and the burden sits with the applicant.
The appeal covers one condition out of ten
This is the part worth knowing before anyone spends money. An interested party may appeal the director's determination — but §25-5-64(B) opens that appeal on (A)(10) alone: whether the replacement plan changes a condition of approval.
And §25-5-64(D) shuts the door behind it. The statement of specific reasons that §25-1-182 requires to start an appeal may only include information directly related to that same (A)(10) determination. You cannot use the appeal to argue about impervious cover, the height, the trees, the traffic analysis, or use intensity.
Where an appeal is taken, it runs to the Land Use Commission first, and a party to that appeal may then take the Commission's decision on to council.
Common questions
Send us an address and we will tell you what we find
We do this research ourselves on every project we take on — zoning, floodplain, watershed, trees, whether it is a legal lot. Send us an address and we will run it and tell you what we find. It works the same whether you own a vacant lot, a house you are thinking of adding a unit to, or a house you are thinking of replacing. No charge and no strings, and if it is a bad lot we will say so.
Send us an addressWe are homebuilders, not the City of Austin. This page explains how we read the code in practice — it is not legal advice and it is not an official determination. Always confirm with Austin Development Services before you rely on it for a project. The authoritative text is the Austin Land Development Code; permitting questions go to Austin Development Services Department.