There are three Zilker cases in front of the Board of Adjustment on May 14th that I think it would be useful for FOZ to have a member vote to support or not. I have attached the three notifications and more backup material is available online through the city’s website as explained in the notification. A couple of these cases have been discussed on various forums in detail but below is a very short summary (and proposed ballot language).
FOZ supports the Goodrich Place affordable housing redevelopment in their variance request to reduce the minimum site area per unit from 1,800 to 1,600 sq ft. This variance is needed to accommodate the addition of new, quality affordable housing in our neighborhood.
(yes or no)
FOZ supports the homeowners who are seeking a variance to allow a storage/ playhouse that added onto an existing structure in a setback.
(yes or no)
FOZ supports the applicant requesting a 10’ height variance to the rear portion of a proposed mixed use redevelopment on the site of the existing Genie Car Wash. This variance is needed to overcome a height compatibility limit triggered by single family lots across the railroad tracks in Bouldin.
(yes or no)
Thanks @rparsonstx - since this is on Monday, let’s try to end our discussion on Friday and get the vote out over the weekend! To me this looks great as is… any input from everyone is welcome!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the ZNA’s position on these issues? I’m assuming they oppose all of them – for no valid reason other than spite and dislike of change – but I’m curious nonetheless.
My understanding is that ZNA actively opposes BOA appeals in most circumstances. Occasionally, they will take a neutral stance (neither for / nor against). And only very, very rarely do they support variance requests.
This has been a real hardship for residents in Zilker who would like the support of their neighborhood association, particularly when the requested variance is fairly straightforward or represents a quality of life issue.
One of the goals of Friends of Zilker was to give residents a forum to present these requests and offer a transparent process through which they could garner support for a BOA appeal.
Thanks to @rob for keeping us up-to-date on these cases and putting forward these items for a vote.
The Goodrich Place variance is relativity modest ask and its for adding affordable housing. That paired with what is an existing very suburban site area per unit base-zoning it seems like the community interest in allowing the variance is a no brainier.
The playhouse case was already discussed in depth on another thread. I tend to default to live and let live on these accessory building issues, and I commiserate with the progression of events but something that tall that deep into the setback is a harder case to make.
The height request for 10 more feet on the genie car wash site Mixed use makes a lot of sense. I personally think the single family compatibility is too strict for properties that face on to major transit corridors like Lamar but I do understand why that rule exists. In this case the fact that the triggering single family are large lots that are separated by the rail road tracks seem to negate the reason for the compatibility.
Thanks for the summary Rob. With regards to the Goodrich Place request, my understanding is that with out the variance, they will not be able to build the 3 bedroom units, which are primarily used by low-income families.
That would be a real shame, since Zilker Elementary is just down the street, and has a long history of working with the families of Goodrich Place. And it would be ideal for the neighborhood if we can keep the Zilker enrollment numbers strong, which will be harder to do if there are no larger units at that development.
I concur across the board.
I agree with Felicity that diversity and affordable housing is such a critical piece of teh pie when it comes to Zilker and Zilker Elementary.
Good point on the Genie car wash site. Is there precedent for negating b/c of RR right of way?
Is there any opposition to these variance requests?
The Goodrich issue was discussed at the ZNA general meeting but no vote or stance mentioned other than just talking about what Goodrich needed for variance. The 3 bedroom units require more FAR than they understood. If can’t get variance they will build more one bedrooms which could make them miss the star required by the state to get started and completed or they loose the tax credits which makes the project viable.
I don’t know if his thoughts reflect the ZNA on whole – or even if it’s “opposition” per se – but here’s what Jeff Jack had to say about it in a post on the ZNA list a couple of months ago:
“ZNA supported the Housing Authority of the City of Austin in its request to rezone a portion of the site, which we anticipated would have gotten city approval as it was a hold over zoning and the actual zoning change was a down zoning to match the rest of the property. We also supported their application for affordable housing tax credits only and not the “project”. We have been disappointed in the project that resulted from them wining the tax credits, but they have the zoning so there was a limited opportunity to negotiate with the development partner doing the project. We tried to get them to do a different scheme but the economics did not work so we have what we have, it is a very complicated story! But for the record ZNA did not support the desing we ended up with!”
Wish there had been a way to change the design/area, on the lot, where the 3 story building will be constructed. It’s going to be right behind several of our houses, and am not looking forward to that frankly. I do support increased housing for our low income neighbors, but the fact that this project is tripling the amount of people in the same area has me a little concerned. As well there doesn’t seem that will be egress to Bluebonnet lane in the plan - so guess where traffic will run off to…Frazier ave. Not happy about that at all.
I believe it was over a year ago now but I do remember seeing a proposed plan of Goodrich Place that Jeff Jack was showing that did look better than what the developer ended up with. I don’t know what happened with that plan or what the process was to provide input. Jeff Jack should get credit for trying to push for a better design, but everything should not be a “negotiation” with one individual, we need more predictable design outcomes - one thing that CodeNext is trying to do.
But even with our existing constraints perhaps the efforts to positively influence the project would have a better outcome had ZNA had a more inclusive process.
Question #1 FOZ supports the Goodrich Place affordable housing redevelopment in their variance request to reduce the minimum site area per unit from 1,800 to 1,600 sq ft. This variance is needed to accommodate the addition of new, quality affordable housing in our neighborhood.
YES 18
NO 0
Question #2 FOZ supports the homeowners who are seeking a variance to allow a storage/ playhouse that added onto an existing structure in a setback.
YES 12
NO 3
Question #3 FOZ supports the applicant requesting a 10’ height variance to the rear portion of a proposed mixed use redevelopment on the site of the existing Genie Car Wash. This variance is needed to overcome a height compatibility limit triggered by single family lots across the railroad tracks in Bouldin.
All three cases were postposed for various reasons but our vote results were submitted and the BOA will have it in their packet for the next meeting. Cases 2 and 3 (as numbered above) will proceed next meeting.
The Goodrich Place developer is just going to ask for a rezoning from MF3 to MF4 rather than ask for the variance so that the variance isn’t used as precedent for other cases. Besides the site area per unit they are restricting all the other zoning metrics, like height, setbacks, impervious cover, etc. to the MF3 standard. I personally wish they had a siteplan with better urban form and street presence but nonetheless it is a worthy project. They will be in front of Planning Commission next week and Council late June. We can see what other cases arise and hold a vote mid June and include this slight change in their request with that vote.