Council allows zoning change to make property more marketable

Council Member Bill Spelman split the difference on the case at 1307 Newning, overruling the Planning Commission recommendation but dividing the staff proposal for zoning and future land use map on the South Austin property.

 

The duplex at 1307 Newning is unusual in the fact that its controversy is one of precedent rather than existing use. The property already is built out with a rather handsome, and high-priced, duplex on the property.

 

The problem, according to current owner realtor Brenda Reese, was that the zoning on the construction at the time  – essentially based on two units on the same lot creating a condominium regime – has significantly hampered her ability to market the property under more favorable terms.

 

So you come back to the theme that has been one on a number of cases lately: Should zoning be adjusted just because it is difficult to finance or sell a particular property? In this case, the answer was a somewhat qualified “yes.”

 

The original developer of the Newning lot chose a condo regime under the existing zoning. But Reese, who eventually bought the property, argued that rezoning as townhomes, under the available SF-6 category, could provide more options for financing and purchase of the property.

 

The neighborhood’s case was its long, and rather significant, battle to rollback zoning in the neighborhood to protect single-family housing.

 

That re-zoning – to create a smaller space for each unit to be individual and self-contained, could drop the initial investment for a potential buyer significantly, Reese said. And she pointed out that rezoning would have been an option, by administrative approval, if the original owner had agreed to seek it.

Spelman crafted a compromise, balancing the need to sell against the surrounding neighborhood’s fear of precedent. He had an ally in Council Member Randi Shade, who admitted that similar compromises had occurred in her neighborhood as property owners found new ways to make properties work.

 

The solution was this: The zoning on the property would be SF-6 for higher density-use, but because the property was all but built out, as is, the future land use map would indicate a lower density use. It was a bit of a conflict, but not too much of a stretch for the majority of Council.

 

“Would this be permissible?” asked Spelman of Greg Guernsey of Planning and Development Review Department at the point of his split motion.

 

“Well, we would be going to the higher density and the use is different…” said Guernsey, in an attempt to explain his department’s concern.

 

“Mr. Guernsey, the question is, ‘Is it allowable?’ and the answer is, ‘Yes.’ You wouldn’t recommend it as being improper,” said Mayor Lee Leffingwell, cutting off lengthy discussion, which did draw a few gaffaws from the audience.

 

In this way, Spelman’s motion could be support short-term financing without compromising long-term goals on the property.

 

As for the neighborhood’s concerns, James Ballard, who lived across the street from the property, noted the long history of Fairview Park and organized efforts to roll back zoning from multi- to single-family three decades ago. That required property owners, Ballard said, willing to give up their entitlements to preserve the qualities of a single-family neighborhood.

 

Fairview Park, in fact, was one the first neighborhood in the city to pursue Neighborhood Conservation Combining District, Ballard said.

 

“Our neighborhood has gone through a lot of efforts to deny this application,” Ballard said. “It’s not just the issue of up-zoning. It’s primarily because of our concerns about setting a precedent. We’ve seen property owners use precedents like this in the past.”

 

Council Member Chris Riley did note that, given the lot size, the neighborhood could have faced additional subdivision, although owner and staff noted that the current construction, given the topography of the lot, appeared to be the limit.

 

Council Member Laura Morrison put out the substitute portion on the less intensive land use category on the future land use map. She was the sole vote against the up-zoning, on a vote of 6-1.