REPORT ON RESIDENTIAL
COMPATIBILITY SITE DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE (A.K.A.,
MCMANSION ORDINANCE)
I. City Council Passes Permanent Single-Family
Development Regulations
II. Task Force Recommendation Regarding Permanent Residential
Compatibility Standards
III. West Austin
Housing Data Relating to the Residential Compatibility Standards
IV. Summary
Of Interim Residential Compatibility Regulations
V. Survey Results of West Austin Neighborhood re Residential Compatibility Standards
VI. Background Info Re Residential Compatibility Regulations
I. City Council Passes Permanent Single-Family
Development Regulations
After four months of Task Force
deliberations, numerous public hearings before the Council, Planning
Commission, and various neighborhood meetings, seemingly countless Task Force
committee meetings, and four hours of public comments, the Austin City Council
unanimously passed rules limiting to limit the size of new, renovation and
add-on home construction in
In summary, the Council decided to substantially enact the Task Force Recommendations for Single-Family Regulations, a summary of which is posted at www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/sfregs_summary_sheet_06.09.06.doc. Also, a copy of the Task Force presentation to Council at the June 8 meeting is posted at www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/task_force_presentation.pdf. Generally speaking, the rules limit homes to either 2,300 square feet or a square footage that is 40 percent of the lot size (whichever is greater), with features such as attics, small attached garages, detached rear garages and first-floor porches not counting toward the size because these elements do not add to the mass and bulk homes. A setback building envelope was also added to push height away from adjacent neighbors, allowing traditional two story homes to be built at the five foot setback line, but requiring taller structures to be moved away from the adjacent neighbors. In addition, a height limit of 32 feet is replacing the current limits of present 35 ft. limit (for single family homes) or 30 ft. (for duplexes). The Task Force attempted to craft rules that would address concerns about overly large new houses that loom over existing neighbors and destroy neighborhood character, but that would still allow homeowners to build bigger and taller homes.
In an amazing 15-1 consensus among a Task
Force comprised of neighborhood leaders, architects, builders and developers,
the group was nearly unanimous in its support of the proposed ordinance (see a
summary at www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/downloads/sfregs_summary_sheet_06.09.06.doc),
though in a last minute act of high drama, four of the Task Force members broke
ranks to submit a minority report seeking looser building rules. In addition, the Home Builders Association
conducted a high profile publicity campaign against the proposed ordinance with
ads claiming that the ordinance would rob defenseless grandmothers of their
retirement nest egg. The HBA ad is
posted at www.bouldincreek.org/Pdf/HBA_Misinfo_2.pdf,
and a humorous rejoinder is posted at www.bouldincreek.org/Pdf/Esther.pdf. Given the numerous statements of concern over
the years from many of our resident grandmothers about the tear down phenomenon
in our neighborhood, it is particularly galling to see the HBA play the
“grandma card” in their ad campaign.
Notwithstanding
the last minute drama and a high profile HBA ad campaign against the Task Force
recommendations, the Council approved the Task Force recommendation by a 7-0
vote. The interim regulations are the
same as those adopted on March 9 but the front yard setback averaging system in
the March 9 ordinance has been replaced with a new front yard setback averaging
system, under which the minimum front setback is the lesser of 25 feet, or the
average of the setback of as many homes, up to 4, closest to the subject lot on
the same side of the block.
Though some in
the development community are already planning to seek relief in the courts or
from the State legislature, I hope that the significant consensus behind the
Task Force recommendation will at least give folks a chance to seriously
consider the merits of the new ordinance.
Once the confusion of uncertainty about the new rules clears, it will be
clear that these rules accomplish the goal of reducing overwhelming mass and
scale, but at the same time are very flexible in allowing new, larger homes to
be built in our neighborhood.
For additional
information on the new ordinance, click here or see the City’s website at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/sf_regs.htm for additional information on the
rules, an FAR calculator, and an explanation about the process and the
regulations.
For a graphical summary
of the setback envelope that is included in the new ordinance, click here.
However, it is important to note that the graphical summary does not
depict the full extent of the permitted building envelope protrusions, such as
side gable roof structures, gables or shed roofs, and dormers.
For a visual example of
what the new building rules would allow on typically-sized lots in our
neighborhood, see the image below. On each
of the example 9,687 s.f. lots, the house is shown as being built at the five
foot side yard setback on one side, and with a driveway down the other side
(though this not required) to a detached rear garage in the back that has an
attic on top.
As depicted, the new building rules would allow 5,067 s.f. of living space to be built, including 3,874 s.f. on the first and second floors of the house, 968 s.f. on the third floor of the house, and 225 s.f. in the attic of the detached garage. In addition, the example includes 570 s.f. of covered or screened back porch, 334 s.f. of covered or screened front porch, and a two-car detached rear garage. All of this fits within the .4 FAR limit, and as the blue planes show, it all fits within the building envelope (aka, daylight plane) limits (which allow for limited protrusions for side gabled roof structures).
II. Task Force Recommendation Regarding
Permanent Residential Compatibility Standards
After months of work and meetings, the Residential
Compatibility Task Force issued a proposed set of residential building rules to
address the so-called “McMansion” phenomenon occurring throughout Austin
At the end of the day, the Task Force’s proposed building
rules are quite similar to the Interim Ordinance requirements, except for two
primary changes: (1) a setback plane has
been added and (2) the FAR limit has been relaxed and tuned to promote detached
rear garages. In addition, the
contextual front yard setback rule is being replaced with a more relaxed
setback rule, and the height limit is being lowered. A
comparison of the TF’s proposed rules and the Interim Ordinance is available by
clicking here
(though it should be noted that there are a few items in the comparison need to
be corrected).
For those who are morbidly
curious, the “setback plane” and FAR changes are described below:
The setback plane is being added
to address the sideyard “looming” effect of excessively tall two or three story
structures by forcing the height of tall walls (e.g., newer 23 foot two-story
homes) away from the side and rear property lines, while allowing traditional
two-story structures (e.g., having a second floor ceiling level at 20 feet) to
be built at the five foot setback. The
proposed setback plane rule includes a number of protrusions which are designed
to permit side gable roof structures, gables, shed roofs or dormers. These protrusions are designed to permit side
gabled roof designs which are prevalent throughout our neighborhood, and to
otherwise prevent a “Monopoly House” effect that might otherwise result from
the setback plane.
As for the proposed FAR rule, the
.4 FAR limit of the Interim Ordinance has been tuned to promote smaller garages
or detached rear garages by including some portion of attached garages space in
the floor area calculation while excluding detached rear garages (up to a
limit). Detached rear garages are
important because they break down the building mass (as compared to attached
garages), improve the side yard spacing (since a driveway down the side is required)
and reduce the “pig snout” effect of front-facing garages. In addition, the proposed FAR rule promotes
using half-story “attic” living space by excluding such space from the floor
area calculation. In other words, go
“up,” not “out.” Finally, the proposed
FAR rule allows adjustments to the FAR by providing a neighborhood adjustment
mechanism to allow neighborhoods to adjust the FAR limit, and also providing a
design review process to allow individual projects to obtain a higher FAR. At the end of the day, the proposed FAR rule
is more relaxed than the Interim Ordinance since attic spaces is essentially
“free,” but does a better job of promoting rear garages.
As mentioned above, the Task Force
proposal has two additional changes from the Interim Ordinance. First, the height limit is being lowered from
35 feet to 32 feet. In addition, the
contextual front yard setback requirement from the Interim Ordinance will be
changed to allow the lesser of 25 feet or the average of your nearby neighbors,
though a neighborhood adjustment mechanism will be provided to allow
neighborhoods to establish a contextual front yard setback requirement. I'm assuming that some parts of
Lastly, it should be noted that
the proposals to reduce the impervious cover limits have not been included in
the Task Force proposal. My sense is
that, by imposing an FAR of .4 that does not include attic space in combination
with the setback plane, the rules are encouraging taller structures that are
moved away from their neighbors and that have reduced impervious cover as
compared to before. To provide a
somewhat simplistic example, prior to the Interim Ordinance being enacted, a new
house was usually two stories tall and could be built out to the maximum
building impervious coverage (40%), resulting in a .8 FAR. With a .4 FAR limit, the typical new house
will still be two-stories (since that is the cheapest way to build), resulting
in a 20% building impervious coverage.
The result is that the building impervious coverage is halved.
The Task Force has proposed a
combined package that does a good job of addressing the bulk and scale issues,
and that will also help reduce impervious cover. In the end, the consensus recommendation
represents a dramatic improvement that will greatly reduce the prior “max out”
building practices.
III. West
Austin Housing Data Relating to the Residential Compatibility Standards
While there are variety of reasons why the City Council decided to take action on the residential compatibility issue, one of the more compelling reasons relates to the startling rate of demolitions in our neighborhood in recent years. In fact, according to the city's online records, during the first two weeks of February, 2006, there were 50 requests for permits to remove homes from properties in the 78703 area, including 41 demolition permit requests and 9 relocation permit requests. See, http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/2005/council_02162006.htm.
To help understand the potential impact of the residential
compatibility rules and how they relate to our neighborhood, here are some
interesting facts obtained from the city’s TCAD data concerning single family
and duplex lots in the
Summary of
|
|
No. of Lots |
Avg Lot SQFT (overall) |
Avg FAR (overall) |
FAR Standard Deviation (overall) |
Avg FAR for older homes (before 2003) |
FAR Standard Deviation (older homes) |
Avg FAR for newer homes built (2003-2005) |
FAR Standard Deviation (newer homes) |
|
|
2581 |
10,492 |
.251 |
.14 |
.245 |
.126 |
.501 (64 homes) |
.325 |
|
|
1398 |
9,583 |
.262 |
.126 |
.260 |
.123 |
.502 (12 homes) |
.15 |
To understand how the “average” FAR
data is distributed, the following tables list the number of homes that fall
within each “bucket” of FAR as calculated in the city’s TCAD data. Please
note that the FAR rule proposed by the Task Force is more relaxed than the TCAD
FAR calculation, so the distribution of FAR count under the Task Force proposal
would essentially be shifted to the left.
Distribution of FAR Count for All (New and Old) SF and
Duplex Lots
|
|
FAR <.3 |
.3 < FAR <.35 |
.35 < FAR <.4 |
.4 < FAR <.45 |
.45 < FAR <.5 |
.5 < FAR <.55 |
.55 < FAR <.6 |
.6 < FAR |
|
|
1992 |
218 |
132 |
62 |
58 |
37 |
26 |
56 |
|
|
1029 |
139 |
86 |
38 |
34 |
15 |
16 |
41 |
Distribution of FAR Count for Newer SF and Duplex Lots
|
|
FAR <.3 |
.3 < FAR <.35 |
.35 < FAR <.4 |
.4 < FAR <.45 |
.45 < FAR <.5 |
.5 < FAR <.55 |
.55 < FAR <.6 |
.6 < FAR |
|
|
14 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
9 |
10 |
5 |
9 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
As seen from the foregoing, the .4 FAR limit proposed by the
Task Force would have affected roughly 33 Tarrytown properties and roughly 7
Windsor Road properties built between 2003 and 2005. In
terms of the overall neighborhood, approximately 95 percent of all existing
homes in
A significant factor in the data is that the average size
(including attached garage space) of new homes built since 2003 is 4,920 sf
(Tarrytown) and 4,468 sf (
IV. Summary Of
Interim Residential Compatibility Regulations
City Council Action: In response to citizen concern about the impact of larger new homes being built in established neighborhoods, the City Council has adopted interim development regulations that limit the size of some new single-family residential construction and remodels. Click here to view the Click here to view the March 9 approved ordinance which is currently in effect. Under the interim regulations currently in effect, people wishing to build or add on to a single-family home, duplex, or secondary apartment may still do so. The interim regulations do not prohibit new construction or remodels. The regulations limit the size of new and remodeled structures and establish new minimum front yard setbacks. Click here to see a diagram of what is allowed under the interim regulations. Also, see the City’s website at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/zoning/sf_regs.htm for additional information on the interim regulations, an FAR calculator, and an explanation about the process and the regulations.
According to the interim development regulations, these temporary
rules apply to single family homes and duplex structures, and would allow:
1. The size of new
homes/duplexes can be the larger of the following:
a. 40% floor to
area ratio (e.g., 3800 sf house on a 9500 sf lot)
b.
(pre)existing square footage + 20%
c. 2500 sf
2. The size of
remodeled homes/duplexes can be the larger of the following:
a. 40% floor to
area ratio (e.g., 3800 sf house on a 9500 sf lot)
b. original
square footage + 1000 sf, if and only if it is a homestead
c. 2500 sf
Contrary to initial public reports, these regulations do not
prevent homeowners from expanding their homes by remodeling or new
construction. Instead, the interim
regulations were intended to provide a flexible allowance for new construction
and remodeling, while at the same time temporarily preventing excessively large
structures from being grandfathered prior to enactment of any permanent
residential standards. The purpose of
these interim development regulations
is to preserve the status quo while the residential compatibility regulations
are prepared, and as such, these temporary rules are a critical tool that would
check the rush of building applications that want to beat the new standards
that are being drafted. While there is
strong neighborhood support for allowing bigger and taller homes to be built,
there have been many instances where the current rules have been “maxed out,”
resulting in dominating houses that overwhelm adjacent homes. There is also significant support for the
interim rules, especially from long-time residents who are concerned about the
effect of incompatible homes on the character of our neighborhood. There is also opposition to these rules, much
of which is caused by the mistaken belief that a “moratorium” will be enacted,
and by confusion about what the rules will require and whether they will be
permanent.
V. Survey Results of
The results of the residential compatibility standards survey of the neighborhood show that there is strong support in the neighborhood for revising the building rules to prevent new homes from being built that overwhelm the nearby neighbors. Indeed, 86% of the survey responses indicated that at least one of five proposed building rule changes should be included, while 14 % indicated that no changes should be made to the building rules. This confirms earlier results from an email survey conducted in February, 2006. Additional details on the result of the surveys are available by clicking here.
VI. Background Info Re Residential
Compatibility Regulations
Planning
Commission Subcommittee Review: At a January 17 Planning Commission subcommittee meeting,
the City Staff reported that they are considering limiting the height of
new/remodeled structures (e.g., to 30 feet) and adding a Floor-to-Area Ratio
(FAR) limit (e.g., .4 to 1), and that they would likely to consider other tools
to address “scale” concerns created by “dominating” masses. A copy of the
Staff’s Draft Recommendation for Single Family Residential Regulations (with
supporting survey and “Residential Worksheet”) is available to clicking here.
Representatives from WANG mentioned that “daylight plane”
limits might also be helpful in addressing “scale” concerns. (A
discussion of daylight planes is provided at http://www.pseudology.org/design/DayLight.htm.) In addition, we
challenged the idea that all houses would look the same if contextual limits
were imposed. We also raised concerns about how height is measured and
FAR is calculated.
The Planning Commission challenged the Staff to come back
with additional proposals that addressed “scale” issues.
Based on the meeting, it seems that we have a good
opportunity to provide some input to the City Staff on their proposed
compatibility ordinance.
City Council
Review: On January 26, the City Council voted to initiate changes to
the Land Development Code to impose residential compatibility
requirements. Referred to informally as
the McMansion Ordinance, the purpose of any code changes would be to impose
limits on floor-to-area ratios, maximum heights and other modifications to
single family uses to ensure that development is compatible with existing
neighborhoods. The City’s posting for
this agenda item is available at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/agenda/2006/downloads/012606051.pdf.
The resolution is being sponsored by Council Member Brewster
McCracken, Council Member Betty Dunkerley and Council Member Lee
Leffingwell. A
worksheet entitled “McMansions” that was prepared for consideration by the
City Council lists the following “possible zoning tools” that could be applied
to address the “McMansion” concerns:
Possible
zoning tools that may be applied to single family uses in all or part of the
City of Austin:
- To change the maximum allowed building height
(by stories and/or feet) for single family uses.
- To create a new floor-to-area ratio (F.A.R.)
requirement for single family uses. [F.A.R. means the ratio of gross floor
area (of a building, excluding a garage) to gross site (lot) area.]
- To apply a modified form of compatibility
standards to new homes or remodeled homes with significant building
additions.
- To create revised building setbacks for homes
which exceed a certain size.
- To limit the size of a home based on an average
of the floor area of the homes on the adjacent lots.
- To provide an angled stepback from the front
property line of the lot so a new or remodeled home would not tower over
the adjacent street.