Dire impact of rezoning on Austin's neighborhoods (West: real estate, apartment)

[Weatherguy]

This is the OP replying. My opening statement was based on information provided by a city staff person. The R2 and R4 designations on the map are still in the proposal.


What was incorrect was that if a property owner tears down a house, they would have to replace it with more than a single family home. That was indeed a proposal, but it was not formally offered to the council. I received a correction from the city this afternoon.


The entire thing is quite complicated and fluid from day to day. Hopefully in the end, it won't have as much negative impact as many Austinites believe, and that it will have net positive benefits for the city.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Weatherguy

I don't know if many Austinites realize how dire the impact of the Council's rezoning proposal is on our neighborhoods. According to the proposal, which has passed on the council's readings, most of the city is re-zoned to two units per land parcel, and a large number of parcels are rezoned to four units per parcel. Also, based on an amendment proposed by member Cesar and passed by the council, if a homeowner wishes to tear down their existing home and build a new one, the new zoning will REQUIRE that multiple units be constructed instead of a single family home. This is citywide. This will undoubtedly destroy our neighborhoods as we know it. I know that if I were considering moving to Austin and buying a home in a neighborhood, I would mark Austin off my list based on the probability that my neighborhood would become a duplex or fourplex neighborhood based on the new zoning.

This is incorrect

1) SF3 already allows 2 units. There are not duplexes everywhere. They reduced the minimum lot size from 7000 to 5000 sq ft, and increased the floor to area ratio. This will allow duplexes to be larger. Some 13K sq ft lots can now be split so one SFH can become 2 duplexes. However the FAR limits were only put in place around 2006, so they are relatively recent.
2) R2 will not prohibit single family homes, though r4 would on a teardown.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I am probably just missing it, but I can't find where a single home property has to be upgrade to two or more homes after a demolition. I don't see it come up in any of the recent council meetings, nor can I find it in the latest code draft date January 31 (albeit the code is a bit long).

What meeting was the amendment proposed in?

I did see that complete tear-downs of single units would be limited to 40% impervious cover if they rebuilt with a SFH, but would have up to 45% if two units were put on the property. That would incentivize higher density construction, but not ban rebuilding a single unit.

they dont require it for R2. R4 are grandfathered until multifamily is built on the site.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by atxcio

I feel I should add that I'm not necessarily supporting the new LDC, I have serious concerns not only about neighborhood preservation but also road infrastructure and water infrastructure (which is already stretched too thin in West Austin to handle any sort multi-home wildfire threat, increasing density there seems dangerous).

virtually all the areas that have wildfire risk are newer HOA communities that already have multifamily bans (jester, daventport, river place, great hills, westminster, long canyon).

Northwest hills is possibly the only interface with canyons/greenbelts without HOAs.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I can't say I am for or against it, either. In reality, I am pretty much not impacted. It is an incredibly complicate process and while I am a 'regulator' by profession, I am not going to try to get totally up to speed on something that involves such a complicated set of parameters, many of which are not only technical but also social.

All that said, the city will get yelled at for doing nothing and they will get yelled at when they do do something. On a very high-level, the city is allowing for the gradual densification of the city and the libertarian in me really dislikes when people try to 'control' their neighbors property .

Im 100% for it. Something needs to be done to create more units in the city. The city is taking a multipronged strategy and this part of it spreads the pain out everywhere.

People dont understand duplexes can already be built and only a few types of houses are economically viable for teardowns.

[Weatherguy]

Originally Posted by Austin97

This is incorrect

1) SF3 already allows 2 units. There are not duplexes everywhere. They reduced the minimum lot size from 7000 to 5000 sq ft, and increased the floor to area ratio. This will allow duplexes to be larger. However the FAR limits were only put in place around 2006, so they are relatively recent.
2) R2 will not prohibit single family homes, though r4 would on a teardown.

See my update above your comment.


My latest conversation with the city indicates that R4 wouldn't prevent a single family home after a tear down. I hope not anyway, considering how many streets in the proposal have a large number of proposed R4s (even streets well away from commercial thoroughfares).



Edit: I see that in your comment above, you're saying single family wouldn't be allowed for R4 once multifamily is built. Thanks for that info.

[Weatherguy]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Im 100% for it. Something needs to be done to create more units in the city. The city is taking a multipronged strategy and this part of it spreads the pain out everywhere.

People dont understand duplexes can already be built and only a few types of houses are economically viable for teardowns.

In the inner city, though, tear downs are occurring all over the place, including Crestview and Allandale, and now even the 1960s north Allandale (to name a few areas). I don't think that's bad, but I'd rather live next door to a single family home than a duplex or fourplex. I guess it remains to be seen whether there would actually be a proliferation of new duplexes and fourplexes (which the city wants based on the proposal).

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I can't say I am for or against it, either. In reality, I am pretty much not impacted. It is an incredibly complicate process and while I am a 'regulator' by profession, I am not going to try to get totally up to speed on something that involves such a complicated set of parameters, many of which are not only technical but also social.

All that said, the city will get yelled at for doing nothing and they will get yelled at when they do do something. On a very high-level, the city is allowing for the gradual densification of the city and the libertarian in me really dislikes when people try to 'control' their neighbors property .

Aren't those that insist that single family neighborhoods that people chose specifically because they were that should be densified because THEY want Austin to be like somewhere else trying to control their neighbors' property, in a way?

I'll have to study this, but my feeling is, it's probably too late for Austin, anyway.

[ScoPro]

Well, the gentrification of Crestview certainly has changed the midcentury character of that neighborhood.
Look what was built next to the 2/1 that my brother bought in 1959 for $6,500 on Piedmont, and similar happened across the street replacing the little “ranch” homes. From quaintly cute to fugly.
Guess the younger folks think that is a good thing.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Well, the gentrification of Crestview certainly has changed the midcentury character of that neighborhood.
Look what was built next to the 2/1 that my brother bought in 1959 for $6,500 on Piedmont, and similar happened across the street replacing the little “ranch” homes. From quaintly cute to fugly.
Guess the younger folks think that is a good thing.

And people who do that don't realize that they are not only doing the neighborhood a disservice, they are doing the HOUSE a disservice. A house like that in a neighborhood of a similar age and style would look fine; as it is, it looks ugly because it's out of place AND the neighborhood feel is destroyed.