The NIMBY fight against density spreads...

[Scottolini]

CITY COUNCIL
City to consider expanding rules restricting home sizes
South Austin residents say the rules would preserve the character of their neighborhoods.

By Juan Castillo
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, December 10, 2009

When the Austin City Council decided in 2006 to limit the sizes of new or renovated houses in the central city, council members said they wanted to preserve the character of older neighborhoods.

Now, residents of some South Austin neighborhoods say their communities have character worth saving, too.

Today, the Austin City Council will consider a resolution asking City Manager Marc Ott to work with South Austin residents to identify boundaries for a potential expansion of the city's Residential Design and Compatibility Standards ordinance, which limits the size, shape and location of dwellings on urban lots. The ordinance currently applies to about 50 neighborhoods bordered by Ben White Boulevard on the south, U.S. 183 on the north and east, and Capital of Texas Highway (Loop 360), Lake Austin and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) on the west.

Council Member Laura Morrison said she sponsored the resolution in response to the first-ever requests by residents outside the ordinance boundaries to be included in its regulations. "I'm certainly responding to people who are now saying, 'Let's have this discussion,' " Morrison said.

The resolution says that the Southwood Neighborhood Association and nearby residential areas south of Ben White Boulevard are facing increased pressure from new construction, redevelopment and additions to existing buildings. In October, Southwood voted to join the much smaller Red Bird Lane and Salem Walk Drive neighborhoods in asking the city to extend the ordinance's boundaries south of Ben White.

"We are simply asking for the same protection that Central Austin neighborhoods received with the McMansion ordinance," said Missy Bledsoe, president of the Southwood association.

Andrea McCartney, who lives on Red Bird Lane just south of Southwood, said she sought the association's support because the Red Bird Lane area doesn't have a neighborhood organization and because "there's strength in numbers."

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...1210homes.html

[Scottolini]

The way we deal with sprawl is preventing the redevelopment of homes like the one below on half acre lots three miles south of downtown. Genius!


Jay Janner/AMERICAN-STATESMAN
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...nsion-080.html

[Scottolini]

You do have to admit, that neighborhood appears to have some very special "character". I mean, places like that do need to be preserved. It's a national treasure!

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't have a problem with neighborhoods wanting to shy away from McMansions, but yeah, this smells like Nimbyism. As for Red Bird Lane, I know the area well. It's located about 1 1/2 miles from me. The houses there are basically shacks from the late 40s and 50s. Surely they're less than 1,000 square feet. Definitely nothing to write home about. There may be a few more from the early 60s, but most seem to be from throughout the 50s. They're all very small and basically have no design merits. Anyway, the neighborhood there isn't much to look at either when it comes to the landscape. Just a few trees, not even many oaks or other hardwoods. Some of the houses that face Stassney have been turned into businesses, mostly daycare centers. One house on Blue Bird Lane burned to the ground earlier this year. The last time I was through there it had been demolished and removed. So surely something will replace it eventually. The lot sizes are modest, but certainly bigger than newer neighborhoods. One thing though, there's a creek that borders it to the west, I'm thinking they probably get some minor flooding there.

As for banning renovations of houses, I'm against that. They should be critiquing new additions based on their design merits rather than their size. Our neighbor across the street added two bedrooms to the backside of their house, plus a garage in the back yard. It looks very nice and is really hardly noticeable from the street anyway with all the landscaping they do. Another house one street over just added a 2nd floor to what looks like maybe one or two bedrooms. And our other neighbor across the street tore off the whole front wall of their enclosed carport and extended it out about 10 feet. They totally remodeled, including new facade and paint. It looks great. I'm more picky about making sure it doesn't look tacky. I could care less if someone wants another room or two. If I lived in one of those tiny houses, I would certainly want to add on a few rooms.

[PartyLine]

I've always liked the houses in Hyde Park I would have bought a house in there but they are to much for the size of the house so I bought in North Cat Mountain instead.

[Scottolini]

Here's an aerial view of the neighborhood. Remember folks, this is less than five miles south of downtown Austin. If we are serious about stopping sprawl, and increasing density in the core of the city, areas like this need to be up-zoned to allow substantially more people to live there than there are currently. This area is ripe for redevelopment at a more sustainable density level.


http://www.bing.com/maps/#JnE9eXAucm...YxNjE0MjI3Mw==

[KevinFromTexas]

The thing is though, there's way more places where they could be building more dense developments. This area of South Austin still has a lot of vacant lots, even wooded areas (mostly cedar) that are untouched. Some of those border creeks which flood, and aren't good for development. Infact, there are at least two small areas of two neighborhoods about 2 miles from that area that are being planned to have a number of houses bought from the home owners and bulldozed because the area floods from bordering creeks. The land would then be turned into open space in the form of parks. Still though, there is a lot of land that could be developed, even farther south along William Cannon. Immediately south of there it's already pretty built up. I live about a mile or mile and a half from that neighborhood. There are a lot of big apartment complexes around here. Just up Stassney Lane from there between Congress & I-35 are some rather large (3 and 4-story) apartment complexes with views of downtown. If I had to guess, I would imagine if that area does get redeveloped, it would be with large apartment complexes.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

The way we deal with sprawl is preventing the redevelopment of homes like the one below on half acre lots three miles south of downtown. Genius!

Jay Janner/AMERICAN-STATESMAN
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...nsion-080.html

To be fair, the statesman article does indicate a duplex is requested. I wouldn't want one being built next to my property either. They don't seem to have a good track record - I haven't seen too many fabulous duplexes. Or may its the ugly ones that haven't been maintained and usually have too many cars parked around it that just draw my attention.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The thing is though, there's way more places where they could be building more dense developments.

Yeah, but all that cheap land 40 miles from DT Austin is irresistible to track builders and big home buyers. I wonder if toll roads and high gas prices are giving some people seconds thoughts before buying that far out .

[KevinFromTexas]

Well, I wasn't talking about really far out, just another 3 to 5 miles and there's still a lot of vacant land. Of course if there's no rail plan, then none of it matters anyway. They could have a light rail line going down Congress and make a stop near Stassney, and it would be just a quarter mile from that neighborhood.

ACC's South Austin campus is also nearby, just a mile and a half west of Congress. And then there's Crockett High across the street, The Oaks Treatment Center and a branch library across from Crockett.

I don't see this area being built densely though. There's one vacant lot across Stassney from my neighborhood and instead of putting in something dense, even some apartments would have been better than this, they put in 2-story duplexes that have yet to be finished. They've been working on that project now for almost 2 years, and they've only completed one single home. All the other "construction" was really just clearing the land and putting in utilities and roads. And another thing, the street that goes in doesn't go all the way through. It dead ends in the middle of the property. I really think it's a dumb project.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Of course if there's no rail plan, then none of it matters anyway. They could have a light rail line going down Congress and make a stop near Stassney, and it would be just a quarter mile from that neighborhood.

Bus 1 currently runs down Congress at very high frequencies. Rail is great, but this area already has fantastic bus service, and is already heavily used. I'm not sure what you mean by, "Of course if there's no rail plan, then none of it matters anyway.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't see this area being built densely though

I didn't say dense, I said at a reasonable density. This area looks borderline rural. It could still be single-family, just allow the lots to be subdivided. And of course no one would force anyone to sale their land for redevelopment. But it would be allowed, which it certainly should be.

[Scottolini]

Originally Posted by JAM

To be fair, the statesman article does indicate a duplex is requested. I wouldn't want one being built next to my property either. They don't seem to have a good track record - I haven't seen too many fabulous duplexes. Or may its the ugly ones that haven't been maintained and usually have too many cars parked around it that just draw my attention.

I think you must only notice the ugly ones, and of course there are plenty of ugly houses as well. An area that has many duplexes, along with apartments, condos, and single-family is the Zilker neighborhood west of Lamar along Bluebonnet, and Kinney. This is a desirable area, and is quite expensive. Yet there is a good mix of residential, and is far from looking run-down.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, I wasn't talking about really far out, just another 3 to 5 miles and there's still a lot of vacant land.

Yeah, I knew you were saying there is plenty of close in land that could be developed, I agree, but for some reason, builders always seem to go 30-40 miles out, probably due to cheap land and probably because that is what the market is willing to pay for.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah. My sister and her fiance just bought a house east of SH 130 They're about 2 miles east of the airport off 71. The house is beautiful and roomy, and the houses are decent designs, not total cookie cutter designs, but it's still a tightly packed suburban neighborhood with no trees since it was built in what used to be cow pastures. One good thing about it is there are some pretty unique skyline views from the main street into the subdivision. Still, I feel like if you're going to live in a neighborhood with yards that small and houses that close to each other, that you might as well live in an urban neighborhood closer in. People say they want their neighbors only so close, and they want space and room and privacy, then buy a house that offers few of those things.

Originally Posted by Scottolini

I'm not sure what you mean by, "Of course if there's no rail plan, then none of it matters anyway.

What I meant was, is that urban rail is usually the catalyst for denser urban development. Without that, it won't be worth it to build denser developments in certain areas of the city. But yeah, I think single family homes or maybe apartments would be best for that area. There's a new development of homes over on Manchaca Road between William Cannon and Stassney, those are the kind of homes that need to be built more often. They're sort of like the stuff going up at Mueller. Better designs, more unique designs. I was over there checking it out, I actually took some pictures of the neighborhood that I need to post. Anyway, they even had bike racks near the street in front of at least one house. I'm wondering if that was an option.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

Here's an aerial view of the neighborhood. Remember folks, this is less than five miles south of downtown Austin. If we are serious about stopping sprawl, and increasing density in the core of the city, areas like this need to be up-zoned to allow substantially more people to live there than there are currently. This area is ripe for redevelopment at a more sustainable density level.


http://www.bing.com/maps/#JnE9eXAucm...YxNjE0MjI3Mw==

I'm most disturbed by this because it sets a precedent for other suburban areas of Austin to demand the McMansion ordinance. I'm no fan of McMansions, but what the ordinance has effectively done is severely limit the opportunity to live in the core for people who want (or need if they have a very large family) a house larger than 3000 sf or so. It pretty much limits the supply to those who can afford Tarrytown.

The other problem is that many desirable core neighborhoods have lots worth $200 K or more, with tiny shacks on them. Anybody who can pay that much for the land is going to want to maximize their investment with a house large enough and nice enough to warrant the land value. The ordinance encourages sprawl by pushing the average homebuyer outside of the core. If it extends to all areas of Austin, the only new large houses available will be in Cedar Park, Round Rock, Leander etc.

The ordinance also makes it much more difficult to build garage apartments on smaller lots (less than 7000 sf) that won the right to do that through the neighborhood planning process.

I don't think the McMansion ordinance will have that much impact in this neighborhood, though, because of the large lots. As long as the lots are zoned the typical SF-3 (and not the less common SF-2), it is possible to build a duplex on any lot greater than 7000 sf. Even with the McMansion ordinance, a 1/4 acre lot would alllow a single-family house of just over 4000 sf, or a duplex with each unit around 2000 sf, which is plenty as far as I am concerned. The request to expand the McMansion ordinance reflects the NIMBY attitude of those trying to fight reasonable infill like this. Unfortunately for them, it will not have the desired effect.

[verybadgnome]

I don't know if this has much to do with limiting density. I think the result could as well be limiting an existing 1000 sq. foot house from going to 3000 sq. ft. and make it only able to go to 2k. Since only one family will be in either the 2k or 3k version density is not affected, only the amount of extra space today's families "need" to survive. No if this entails something else I'm all ears.........

[Scottolini]

"For months, McCartney has been fighting a proposal by developers seeking a city zoning change allowing them to build duplexes or condos on a lot next door to her house, amid a small pocket of older homes set on half-acre lots. A number of adjacent property owners also signed a petition opposing the zoning change.

City staff has recommended approval of the change, which would allow the developer to proceed with plans to re-subdivide the property into two duplex lots, for a total of four units."
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...1210homes.html


Yeah, it's about density. Taking a small, old, unattractive single-family home, demolishing it, and adding a couple of brand new duplexes certainly does increase density. If you allowed this across the whole neighborhood, the area would hold substantially more people who would otherwise probably live in new housing built even further out. These new areas wouldn't have bus service, the only way to get around would probably involve getting on a freeway, etc. It's not an all or nothing scenario. Redevelopment doesn't necessarily mean the area has to be a shining example of new urbanism. It doesn't have to have light rail, or streetcar to be more sustainable, and prevent sprawl.

[KevinFromTexas]

Actually, there's a lot of bus service around there. Buses run on Stassney, South First and Congress which surround the neighborhood, and on William Cannon and Manchaca which are further away, less than 2 miles.

We only use I-35 if we're leaving town, or going to North Austin. Other wise if we're going downtown or closer to the north, we take either Congress, South First, or Manchaca (to Lamar). And if we need to go north up the west side of the city we take Machaca to Ben White to Mopac.

Last night when we went to Zilker Park to see the tree and lights, we took Stassney to Manchaca to Lamar to Barton Springs Road. We got there in 15 minutes. Of course we parked near Lamar & Barton Springs and walked to the park.

[JAM]

I have to admit, if I had purchased a home over there, I would do it with plans to build a bigger home someday, that would increase the value of my investment. (I certainly would not buy real-estate with the plan of having it go down in value) Having a duplex next door would most likely lower my investment return and thus would be compelled to fight it too. Really, when you hard earned money comes at stake, who wouldn't? And although I am all for higher density development, I think it needs to be done tastefully, and within the context of the neighborhood involved. Some of these low budget duplex, four-plex and small condos are ultra cheap and soon become trash. Next thing you know, you have an area with 10 different styles of design, and 10 different opinions on what looks nice and the whole place becomes a run down existence. The Chinese have the upper hand in a situation like this, just push everyone out, go hi-density, and make the area conform.

Maybe the city should have a long range plan for an area like this, and provide specific parameters of what can be built and how it should look, so the area has some sort of flow to it once it is finished, so it doesn't end up looking like some crappy afterthought.

That said, what H20 says makes a lot of sense, and I agree with that line of thought.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Scottolini

"For months, McCartney has been fighting a proposal by developers seeking a city zoning change allowing them to build duplexes or condos on a lot next door to her house, amid a small pocket of older homes set on half-acre lots. A number of adjacent property owners also signed a petition opposing the zoning change.

City staff has recommended approval of the change, which would allow the developer to proceed with plans to re-subdivide the property into two duplex lots, for a total of four units."
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...1210homes.html


Yeah, it's about density. Taking a small, old, unattractive single-family home, demolishing it, and adding a couple of brand new duplexes certainly does increase density. If you allowed this across the whole neighborhood, the area would hold substantially more people who would otherwise probably live in new housing built even further out. These new areas wouldn't have bus service, the only way to get around would probably involve getting on a freeway, etc. It's not an all or nothing scenario. Redevelopment doesn't necessarily mean the area has to be a shining example of new urbanism. It doesn't have to have light rail, or streetcar to be more sustainable, and prevent sprawl.

I agree the intent is about fighting density, but the reality is somewhat different. A half acre lot subdivided into two duplex lots would allow each duplex unit to be as large as 4000 sf each even under the McMansion ordinance. More than likely, they would be substantially smaller and there would still be plenty of yard for each unit. It might not look like the rest of the neighborhood, but it still wouldn't be as dense as some urban core neighborhoods.

In fact, it would be perfectly legal to divide a 1/2 acre lot into three duplex sized lots, yielding six units of almost 1500 sf each. Subdivision and site plan are not discretionary. If a design meets all of the standards, the city has to approve it, whether the next door neighbor likes it or not.