I agree with you that it would make more sense for FAN to take a position on LHDs in general and let FoBBH take a position on this specific LHD. I do, however, disagree that zoning is a red herring, especially given CodeNext. CodeNext will likely be much more permissive of “missing middle” housing types such as fourplexes, row houses, small courtyard apartment buildings, and bungalow courts. Any LHD which would make it more difficult to build this type of housing would compromise the FAN principles IMO. LHDs cannot be used as a tool for neighborhoods to opt out of doing their part to help Austin grow sustainably and provide denser (but still compatible), more affordable housing types.
1 Like
I’m not sure if it makes sense for FAN to take a position on this one specific LHD. It would make more sense for FAN to take a position on LHDs in general. I personally am against all LHDs which would threaten the construction of more abundant, neighborhood-scale housing types. After CodeNext, it will be much easier to construct missing-middle housing types that will help address the affordability issue and help Austin grow in a more walkable, sustainable, and inclusive manner. I feel like it would go against FAN principles for a LHD to allow neighborhoods to opt-out of neighborhood-appropriate density. Austin is growing, and every neighborhood can help Austin grow sustainably without compromising its character or homeowners’ property rights. Our neighborhoods are eclectic, and I feel like the right kind of development can strengthen the character of our neighborhoods by making them even more diverse and eclectic. I deeply believe that Austin could be THE city of the 21st century, but not if we attempt to freeze the past. The needs of the city are constantly changing; it will only cause harm by freezing the housing stock in the past.
1 Like
Great discussion all! Since I started this please let me make a few comments:
(1) The LHD program is the best tool in the toolbox to maintain status quo, aka “protect the neighborhood”. This was the guidance the LHD applicant in my neighborhood received from a City Council member, shared in a large public meeting where we debated the merits / demerits of LHD, leading to withdrawal of that LHD application. FAN is not about status quo, FAN is about helping to steer change, which is inevitable, in a positive direction, in which all neighborhoods contribute.
(2) Since LHD is being used as a NIMBY strategy it is a FAN level concern, & not just a neighborhood issue. I initiated this resolution and do not live in BBH, it is not intended to be about a NA asking for help against another NA. For me it is like asking if FAN should get involved if BBH was petitioning Council to ban ADU’s & STR’s in their neighborhood.
(3) The economics are as follows:-a- property is generally worth less when restricted (ask any Realtor / Broker), however -b- yours may be worth more if your neighbors are restricted (especially if yours is already restricted) so -c- those who border a LHD benefit the most financially. “Non-contributing” may benefit, “contributing” generally suffer, unless they already have landmark status or have otherwise achieved “highest & best usage”. “Affordability” suffers from property restrictions - which I define as an “on average” impact to our citizenry, & believe is what FAN means by it.
Since I fall into category -c-, & opposed our neighborhood LHD proposal, that would indicate it is not being done for personal financial gain, or that I’m not too bright 
I love art / architecture, think we have many treasures here worth protecting, and a landmark program that already provides that protection. IMHO LHD programs work where there is a uniform style or period - San Francisco, Santa Fe, Nantucket - Central Austin neighborhoods are eclectic, and trying to stop them from continuing to evolve is like trying to stop Austin from being “weird”.
Thanks Kristen for taking an interest in this topic, we will all be better off for you having done so.
1 Like
As a member of FoBBH, let me say that if FAN is not comfortable with the resolution or supporting FoBBH, then please do not worry about us. We will be okay as we are pretty certain we have this thing defeated. So no worries.
As a member of FAN, I do think this is FAN issue for several reasons:
-
FAN is about being inclusive, transparent, and allowing everyone to have a voice. The way this LHD came to fruition and the way LHD’s can be established in this city, does not follow this mantra. In fact, it was created by an organization that surrounds the neighborhood and would be the very people who benefit from it’s existence the most. It is at the very core of what FAN started out trying to overcome. Existing HOA’s and groups who exclude the majority of the residents.
-
FAN should take a stand because if this LHD passes, then it sets a bad precedent for every neighborhood in Austin that has homes older than 50 years (so every neighborhood with 2/3 of it’s homes built before 1965) would be eligible to become an LHD, and would grow every year. Remember BBH does not have a single home built by a known architect and there is nothing “historic” about these homes, per the City’s own preservation officers comments. We do have 1 historic landmark, that looks nothing like the rest of the neighborhood.
-
If FAN wants to have a voice about matters, whether controversial or not, then they need to take a stand. The point of FAN having any political clout is that it just isn’t one small HOA or neighborhood group, but an entire city of groups which makes it have a stronger more important voice.
I urge you if you have not already, to watch the opposition video and ask yourself, what if this was your neighborhood?
http://friendsofbluebonnethills.com/lhd/
Thank you and whatever you decide it will be fine with us. Rana
2 Likes
Very good points. I am comfortable supporting the resolution. If anyone is not OK with FAN’s involvement, they can simply vote against the resolution.
I’m so happy that this is being discussed in such depth! This issue definitely deserves a thoughtful conversation about how FAN values compare not only with the BBH district, but with LHDs in general.
I’m not giving up yet, though! I’m still hopeful that I can convince some people that LHDs and FAN CAN work together. I don’t think this is necessarily an “either-or” answer–I think it really has the potential to be a “both-and” answer.
I believe this because LHDs function as a zoning overlay. Types of infill are not regulated by the LHD The ONLY thing that is regulated by the LHD for new construction is compatibility (things like the massing and setback). CodeNext says that LHDs are not at odds with form based code–and if the zoning changes, there is absolutely no reason that duplexes or four-plexes wouldn’t be allowed as long as they’re in keeping with the existing character.
I see this as a win-win for us, ya’ll. We can have both new development AND keep the old if we utilize LHDs to help us save what’s in danger.
OH, and Rana–whether or not this passes, I’m game for helping you paint your house neon and camo 
3 Likes
Really eye-opening point, @Kristen_A_Fox, about LHDs serving as an overlay and complementing possible efforts to provide abundance and perhaps even some level of diversity of housing.
I don’t know of anyone here (although I saw it on Facebook) who has argued that LHDs are always in conflict with FAN’s principles of inclusion. But we’ve struggled to define the criteria we’d use to make that judgment.
In this case, the motivation of some neighbors supporting the LHD seems to be a fear of change, particularly of new development. Using an LHD merely as a tool to resist new development (even if some of the proponents might be concocting more legitimate rationales) seems clearly inappropriate - and clearly in violation of FAN principles - to me.
Perhaps one of our criteria should be the LHD must be form based; i.e. it must not restrict use or new development, just its form. A corollary would be that it should not stand in the way of zoning (or lack thereof) that allows the construction of new single-family and new multi-family.
This brings up a very important concern re LHD - the design standards are not etched in stone. The current process should have a “buyer beware” stamp on it “Just an overlay” may not mean what you think.
Having lived through a LHD application & seen first hand that the neighborhood committee can change design standards after the property owner “vote” is taken, then watch a City Historic Officer (not Steve) introduce a massing restriction on large lots in front of the Landmark Commission just prior to their vote - it seems you don’t really know what you are buying or have confidence in who / what / when it can be changed. The massing restriction would have trumped the COA McMansion ordinance & impervious cover rules on density, earlier there was a restriction on removing a tree to build which trumped the COA Tree Ordinance (deleted after protest). These NIMBY terms were proposed on properties in the downtown grid, a short walk to the heart of our bus transit system. So much for compact & connected…
Perhaps there is a LHD program design point that could work for those who want it, where it is appropriate, that is FAN compatible, but IMHO we should base our vote “today” on what we have in place today.
A challenge with an ordinance trying to perform the function of HOA restrictions, or Deed Restrictions, is that you do not have the stability or legal requirements for revision. It would seem likely that another City figured that one out, & would be interesting to find out how. @Kristen_A_Fox, your optimism is contagious -