MF6 / density bonuses

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Kathie Tovo
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:18 am

MF6 / density bonuses

Post by Kathie Tovo »

Colleagues,
This week’s agenda has an item from the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee concerning the implementation of a density bonus through the MF-6 rezoning category. This recommendation is a small portion of a broader resolution I have moving forward concerning changes to our density bonus programs. To help with the upcoming conversation, here is a brief explanation of the intent. As Bobby Levinski notes, I will likely suggest we postpone the item this week.

In 2008, per the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Incentives Taskforce, the City Council adopted a “Greenfield” density bonus, which relaxes the development standards on undeveloped MF-2 through MF-5 zoned property to a modified version of MF-6 standards in exchange for on-site affordable housing. At the time, this bonus was applied to only Greenfield sites to avoid placing economic pressures and encouraging the demolition of existing “affordable” market rate units.

Also, the City Council adopted the Vertical Mixed Use overlay, which applies mostly to commercially zoned properties along designated arterials throughout Central Austin. With VMU, developers can take advantage of relaxed development standards in exchange for providing on-site affordability. This has resulted in the production of more than 300 affordable units geographically dispersed throughout the city.

The combination of these two programs leaves us with a gap—there is no broad-scale density bonus that applies to developed commercial properties with no VMU designation.

We most recently experienced the lack of a density bonus structure with the rezoning case at 8528 Burnet Road. A developer purchased a commercial property that he wanted to redevelop into a dense multi-family residential project. The rezoning was from CS to MF-6-CO. Due to concerns over pushing the “inclusionary zoning” envelope, the City Council was not able to attach any legally enforceable mechanism for the inclusion of affordable housing. The developer did voluntarily to agree to dedicate a portion of the units as affordable (thank you to Council Member Casar for his work in that area). But, the agreement is honor-based and not enforceable. And, the months of delay and debate over this case may have been avoided with a predictable process to achieve both goals of increased density and affordable housing.

During the debate, I made a motion to rezone the property with the VMU overlay. This would have enabled the City Council to increase the density on the property substantially while securing a guaranteed obligation for long-term affordability. But, it was not a perfect solution—there are elements of the VMU that may not have worked with the desired development.

Debates concerning the decision to pursue MF-6 over VMU are not new. As early as January 12, 2012, Council Member Laura Morrison raised the concern “that we’re using MF-6 to attain the density that is like vertical mixed use density, but also [without] the affordability requirements.”

So, this is resolution is an attempt to start a community discussion about how to fill the gap left by VMU. I believe geographic dispersion of affordable housing is a critical goal for our community, and density bonuses are the best tool we have at this time to achieve it.

As I mentioned before, I brought forward a more comprehensive resolution on several changes that I believe are important to discuss at the Council level. The different parts of that resolution got broken up into different timelines, but I do plan on bringing forward those recommendations along with others over the next couple months. I appreciate the offices that have offered to cosponsor that resolution, and I will be reaching out to you as we continue to develop it.

Best regards,
Kathie Tovo
Council District 9