Planning Commission proposes changes to compatibility

The Planning Commission Tuesday launched a proposal that would let single-family homeowners decide to allow taller buildings near them.

The change to city code would let individual owners waive compatibility, a rule that limits the height of buildings near single-family homes and, critics say, acts as a barrier to building more housing in the city.

The commission suggested two types of compatibility waivers:

• A property owner could ask the Planning Commission and City Council to not trigger compatibility on neighboring properties
• One or more property owners could agree to not trigger compatibility on a specific property, and city staff could approve the waiver if a certain percentage of owners near that property sign on

In each case, property owners would likely request a waiver in the context of a nearby development proposal.

Currently, city code only allows these types of waivers in limited cases. The Board of Adjustment can also grant compatibility waivers, but applicants must prove that their circumstances meet a legal definition of hardship. Many peer cities allow property owners to ask their land use commission or city council for compatibility waivers, according to Commissioner Greg Anderson. 

The commission voted 10-0-2 to initiate a process to adopt the proposal, with commissioners Jennifer Mushtaler and Grayson Cox abstaining. City staffers, the Planning Commission and City Council will work out the details in the coming months.

A zoning case heard by the commission on Tuesday highlighted how a compatibility waiver might avoid conflict between property owners and lead to more housing. 

The owner of a 1-acre property at 2404 Thrasher Lane requested a downzoning from General Commercial Services (CS-NP) to Family Residence (SF-3-NP) in order to build four duplexes. The downzoning would mean compatibility applies to nearby properties – a big problem for Sara Souerbry, a local developer who plans to build a multifamily or mixed-use project next door.

Souerbry opposed the rezoning because compatibility would restrict building height and decrease the number of units she could build. 

“Back-of-the-napkin math, it was about 330 units reduced to 150, so significant,” Souerbry said. 

The applicant requested SF-3 after failing to gain support from some neighbors for Townhome and Condominium Residence (SF-6) or CS-MU, neither of which would have triggered compatibility. 

A motion to recommend SF-3 zoning failed on a 5-7 vote, with some commissioners uncomfortable with the downzoning itself and the impact to Souerbry’s project. Souerbry’s opposition alone meets the threshold for a valid petition, meaning a supermajority of at least nine City Council members must vote in favor to approve the rezoning. 

The applicant for the rezoning would have likely sought a compatibility waiver had it been an option, in order to avoid Souerbry’s opposition. “We are not in the business to oppose development,” Rodney Bennett, the applicant’s representative, said.

Photo by Ben Tesch, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

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.