Austinist: Planning Commission Approves Plan to Tighten McMansion Restrictions on Small East Austin Lots

Alan Sudo

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:31:48 -0600

Is that really you in the red speedo photo?

Benj

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:59:04 -0600

No pun intended.

Benj

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:57:37 -0600

Sudo, I know, I'm one of them. By 'people' I mean 'lots of people'.

mdahmus

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:28:40 -0600

Forcing people to go through the BoA (or the even more ludicrous "I'm Karen McGraw; I live in 3600 square feet in Hyde Park; but you have to woo me if you want to build 2401 square feet yourself" commission) isn't an answer - because those development rights are time-limited and would be useless to somebody hoping to sell to, as somebody else indicated, put their grandkids through college.

name

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:06:26 -0600

well, in case of a hardship, like if you have a lot that is only 45' x 60', the owner can visit the Board of Adjustments... if they feel your pain, they can waive give you an alternate deal...

Alan Sudo

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:28:26 -0600

Actually Benj, yes, people do buy these small lots. 4 of the last 9 houses in my East Austin neighborhood have been on small lots, 2 of them just 50' x 65'. The 40% is more restrictive than it might sound because the City includes EVERYTHING when calculating the Sq. Ft. you can build - garages, outdoor balconies (but not ground floor porches), breezeways, utility closets. Realtors and tax collectors just count air-conditioned space, so the difference can be substantial. Also, it should be noted that OCEAN does not oppose all "tear-downs" that change the character of the neighborhood, only those targeted for upper / middle income residents or non-traditional residents. They cite both income and "retention of traditional residents" as reasons they support bulldozing existing single family houses on E. 8th St, rezoning the lots from single family to multifamily and raising the height limit from 40' to 60'.

Jros

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:15:24 -0600

It's a net positive.

Benj

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:15:13 -0600

Seems like another semi-well-intended turd. But were the poor owners of small lots going to build on? Were people who could buy those lots for a massive do-over going to buy such a small lot? Probably no in both cases. I think the true wrongness is in its ineffectual banality. On a case-by-case basis, gentrification can be rad, and it can be insidious. But this seems like a bunch of splashing about. Although on the whole it's probably a neg, as several families in my hood seem to have been hording little empty lots here and there, waiting for a $100k payday. If they become unattractive to developers, their grandkids can kiss college goodbye.

AC

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:46:37 -0600

Thanks for the link, Shilli. I only caught the second half of the PC hearing last night, but there were indeed some angry long-term homeowners speaking against the change.