Council considers code amendments to relax single-family zoning rules

City Council will consider an item at this week’s meeting that would begin the process of relaxing the city’s strict single-family zoning rules.

Item 126, sponsored by Council Member Leslie Pool, directs the city manager to propose code amendments that reduce the minimum lot size from 5,750 to 2,500 square feet or less, so that existing standard-size lots can be subdivided and developed with a variety of housing types, such as row houses, townhomes, tri- and fourplexes, garden homes and cottage courts. The resolution would also amend the code to permit the development of three units on single-family lots.

In a Monday post to the City Council Message Board, Pool defended her proposal and denied that it would result in the elimination of single-family zoning. “This proposal does not eliminate single-family zoning – in fact, my proposal would add options and entitlements to single-family use, and create more housing opportunity for middle-income homeowners,” she wrote.

The resolution also directs the city manager to adjust site development regulations for single-family zoning districts to “allow up to three dwelling units on smaller lots that are created by subdividing a single-family lot” and “allow two or more dwelling units to be constructed on a single-family lot.”

Specifically, the resolution asks the city manager to propose adjustments to setbacks, height, impervious cover and floor area ratio, as well as regulations that affect the redevelopment of existing substandard lots. It also asks the city manager to limit the applicability of the Residential Design and Compatibility Standards (or “McMansion Ordinance”) so that it only applies when there is a single unit being built.

Additionally, the resolution directs the city manager to propose eliminating minimum site area and building coverage requirements and, if legally feasible, allow “for innovative methods to mitigate potential runoff from additional impervious cover” and “utility layouts and connections to support multiple units on multiple lots.”

Finally, the city manager would be directed to propose any additional site development regulations needed to facilitate the creation of smaller lots – and therefore more housing units – in single-family zoning districts, as well as strategies to mitigate any unintended consequences of the resolution, including conflicts with law or other parts of city code.

Pool said the change is needed after the city has spent years employing other strategies only to see minimal results. “I realize if I were starting out today, I wouldn’t be able to purchase a home in the central city,” Pool said at Tuesday’s work session.

However, Council Member Alison Alter indicated she would not support the resolution, which she said “departs drastically” from current zoning policy. She warned that developers could use the changes as a loophole to construct “McMansion” homes with no city oversight.

The group Community Not Commodity, which advocates for equitable land development policies, also blasted the resolution in a Friday email.

“If implemented, this radical proposal would allow a developer to demolish homes and subdivide existing single-family zoned lots into multiple 2,500-square-foot lots (or smaller) and build at least three new units on each of those lots, effectively transforming all single-family zoning into multi-family zoning across the city,” the statement reads.

In a letter dated July 14, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority President and CEO Dottie Watkins wrote Mayor Kirk Watson and the rest of Council to express support for the changes.

“If approved by the Council, the amendments and streamlined processes initiated by these resolutions would go a long way in modifying key levers in our current land development code yielding net positives for housing, affordability, while creating a much more conducive environment for better transit,” Watkins wrote.

Photo by TrishZatx made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.