Results of West Austin Neighborhood Survey on
Residential Compatibility Standards
In connection with the
residential compatibility standards being considered by the Austin City Council
to control the so-called “McMansions” phenomenon
occurring in Central Austin, WANG recently conducted a short survey of West
Austin residents to obtain an accurate read of the neighborhood’s interests in
this area. The survey was distributed by
hand to every resident in the WANG neighborhood west of MoPac, along with an
extensive email distribution of surveys, as well as a posting of the survey on
our web site and advertising of the survey through the West Austin News. In addition, we conducted a public meeting to
review the survey and answer questions at Casis Elementary
School
Our objective with the survey was to collect
the responses and present the results to the City Council and the Task Force
considering this issue so that our neighborhood’s preferences are fully
considered. We can now report the
preliminary results of the survey.
Of the initial 3000 surveys that were
distributed, approximately 300 survey responses were submitted. Given the abbreviated survey period (just
over a week), the resulting response rate (approximately 10%) was quite good, and
was in line with the survey response rates seen in other City survey efforts.
In response to the first survey question, 84% of the survey responses agreed that
more effective enforcement was needed of the existing Code requirements
(such as impervious cover limits), regardless of whether new compatibility
standards are incorporated into the Land Development Code.
In response to the second survey question, 78% of the survey responses agreed that some type of permanent
residential compatibility standards should be enacted to prevent the
construction of very large houses that dominate or overwhelm nearby houses. This
percentage in support (78%) is almost exactly the same as obtained in an
earlier email survey. The percentage of survey responses that
did not support some type of permanent residential compatibility standards
(22%) included survey responses that did not answer the second survey
question.
In response to the third survey question,
·
76% of the survey
responses agreed that new homes that are too tall;
·
80% of the survey
responses agreed that new homes that are too close to their side neighbors;
·
79% of the survey responses
agreed that new homes that are too big for the lot;
·
77% of the survey responses
agreed that new homes that have too much impervious cover; and
·
72% of the survey responses
agreed that new homes that are too close to the
street in comparison to the nearby/adjacent neighbors. Again, these survey responses were calculated
to take into account survey responses that did not answer the third survey
question.
As for the fourth survey question, the survey
requested that five possible building rule changes be ranked for inclusion (or
exclusion) in the permanent residential compatibility standards. These building rule changes included:
(1) Increased side yard
setbacks for second and third stories.
For example, a sideyard setback of at least nine feet could be required
for any second or third floor story.
(2) Limit gross floor
area based on size of lot. For example,
the gross floor area could be limited to a percentage (e.g., 40%) of the total
lot size, so that a 4000 sq. ft. house could be built on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot.
(3) Lower impervious
cover limit. For example, the total
impervious coverage limit could be lowered to 40%.
(4) Impose front yard
setback limits based on front yard setbacks of nearby/adjacent neighbors. For
example, the front yard setback could be based on the average setback of the
nearby or adjacent neighbors.
(5) Lower height
limit. For example, the building height
limit could be lowered to 30 feet.
Remarkably, 86% of the survey responses indicated that at least one of the five building rule changes should be
included, while 14% of the survey responses indicated
that none of the five building
rule changes should be included.
Somewhat surprisingly, there was significant and substantial support for
each of the proposed building rule changes, with each proposed building rule
change having between 70-80% support from the survey responses. According to the survey results, the highest
priority building rule changes were for (1) increasing the sideyard setbacks
and (2) limiting the gross floor area.
Finally, for the fifth survey question (which sought the
neighborhood’s response to WANG’s recommendation of adding a adding a two-prong
incentive-based compatibility standard to the existing Land Development Code to
balance the need for larger homes/duplexes that are compatible with the
existing neighborhood), 28% of
the responses were neutral to WANG’s recommendation, but for the balance
of the responses, the ratio of support to opposition was 3.5 to 1. In other words, 56% of those responding to the fifth
survey question agreed with WANG’s recommendation, 28% were neutral and 16% opposed. The two-prong, incentive-based model would
begin with a “Base Size” (e.g., a 40% floor-to-area ratio limit with upper
story side yard setbacks) so that any home/duplex on a lot could be built up to
said Base Size, no questions asked, but if a larger home/duplex were desired,
the Base Size could be increased (up to a Maximum Size) by including
predetermined compatibility-friendly design features (e.g., increased setbacks,
drainage protections, lower heights, front porches, sloped roofs, tree
protection, offset windows, recessed garages, maintaining relative scale at
front of house, recesses/contours in sidewalls or other neighborhood-based
details.).
Results of February Email Survey
February Email Survey: An (admittedly imperfect) email survey of the
neighborhood in early February shows that there is strong neighborhood support for
some type of residential compatibility standards and protections:
1. Some type of
permanent residential compatibility standards should be enacted to prevent the
construction of very large houses that dominate or overwhelm nearby
houses.
RESULTS
(220 responses) -
·
Agree: 78%
·
Disagree: 20%
·
Neutral: 2%
2.
Temporary development
regulations should be enacted to maintain the status quo and prevent
overdevelopment while the permanent residential compatibility standards are
prepared.
RESULTS
(220 responses) -
·
Agree: 74%
·
Disagree: 24%
·
Neutral: 2%
