For one purpose only ~ to warn
of end-game interventions we oourselves might encounter, once our Plan
is ready for a vote, if those of us doing the planning fail to build outreach
bridges along the way to the community at large ~ in the end, both participants
and non-participants alike have a vote, and there will be at least 5 times
as many of the latter ... gb (00Oct19)
| Oct 14, from Cynthia Medlin, Coordinator of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan |
The City of Austin Planning and Environmental Conservation Services Department (PECSD) will be sending a ballot to every property owner in the Dawson Neighborhood so that everyone will have a vote on what the neighborhood adopts as guidelines and regulations for infill, rezoning, overlay, etc.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, at 6:30
p.m. at the South Austin Multi-Purpose Center on Durwood, there will
be a meeting to review this ballot. Sue Karczewski-Hounsel from PECS
will be there. If you have questions in advance, call Sue at 499-6564.
And if you have neighbors who don't have e-mail and weren't at the
DNA meeting on October 3, please pass this information on to them
and encourage them to come. We'd like the input of as many residents
as possible. The decisions made on the basis of the results of this
ballot will affect everyone.
| Oct 14, from "Kelley Smoot" <ir003864@mindspring.com>, Subject: [ANCtalk] Neighborhood-wide rezoning for Dawson |
Hi all, it's Kelley Smoot, Dawson resident. The following is an extract from the Sept. 2000 Dawson Newsletter. These proposals are what Dawson Neighborhood Plan Coordinator Cynthia Medlin, her co-chair(?) Jerome (Jerry) Garvey, and City of Austin Employee, Sue Karczewski-Hounsel have proposed to present to the City Council for Dawson on behalf of all property owners. Proposal for a Dawson Neighborhood Plan Under the City of Austin's newly adopted Smart Growth Initiative, Infill and Redevelopment Guidelines neighborhood plans that have been adopted by the City Council may create a Neighborhood Plan Combining District (NCPD).
We are proposing allowing neighborhood-wide options for the following special uses: Cottage: (Allows single-family units in 2,500 sq. ft. lots. Allowed in MF-6 or less restrictive with a 2 acre maximum.) Secondary Apartment: ("Garage Apartment": An additional detached single-family residence in back of a lot with a single-family residence. Allowed in MF-6 or less restrictive.) Urban Homes: (Use of a site for a single-family residential dwelling on 3,500 sq. ft. lot. Allowed in MF-6 or less restrictive.) Most "Single Family" homes in Dawson are in SF-3 zoning and would be covered under the definition "MF-6 or less restrictive." (for a complete version of this as it appeared in Sept. 2000 DNA newsletter see http://www.main.org/dna/newslettersept00.html)
Sue Karczewski-Hounsel and her affiliate
at Planning and Environmental Conservation Services, George Adams,
have confirmed:
<> 1. these guidelines would reduce the
required lot size for a residential structure from 5700 sq. ft. to
2500 sq. ft.
<> 2. are applicable to new and existing
lots (in other words, existing houses could be bought, torn down,
and the land sub-divided into these much smaller parcels)
<> 3. would increase impervious cover
from 40% to 65% on lots developed in this manner (this impervious
cover figure is higher if you include sidewalks and easements)
<> 4. Lots could be as narrow as 25'
across, reducing public parking on the street, while increasing the
need for parking through greater density.
<> 5. would not require rear access or
public access be provided to deep lots, increasing fire risk and
EMS access to those deep lots and their neighbors. (Many lots in
Dawson are deeper than 150' - the depth currently required under
fire code that must be accessible from the street)
<> 6. would cause a loss of greenspace
and an increase in asphalt -- making it even hotter in the summer
in Dawson
<> 7. would increase noise since more
neighbors = more noise.
<> 8. would remove compatibility standards
since garage apts., driveways and secondary apts. could arise within
5' of existing houses and their back yards. In other words, what
is now your neighbor's back yard, adjacent and compatible with your
backyard, could turn into a parking lot and/or building
<> 9. would allow the development of
flag lots (such as those in the rural county areas where the city
has no zoning authority), with narrow private drives (as narrow as
10' with parking allowed within that 10 feet width), with reduced
police patrol since police are not allowed to patrol private drives/properties.
Art Cory, Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal Dist. has confirmed this type of development could greatly escalate land values and start a cycle of purchase, house destruction, and land subdivision, especially in an older area like Dawson, where the houses in general, shall we say, lack the innate charm and architectural appeal of Travis Hts. or Hyde Park. (That description of Dawson is mine, not Mr. Cory's.) Mr. Cory said houses remaining on traditional-sized lots of approximately 7500 - 8500 sq. ft., would have to be re-appraised by TCAD at much higher land values, with a much lower house value (since the older houses would not be as valuable as the new ones). Overall the older properties would greatly increase in price because of their land, not their structures, making their houses much more subject to destruction.
Who decided property owners who have multiple lots (of varying sizes and zoning categories) get one vote, along with property owners who own a typical house lot? What if only 25 ballots are returned? Is this a valid election? Under what authority does Sue Karczewski-Hounsel, Cynthia Medlin and Jerry Garvey have to hold any election? Has the City has initiated this type of top-down, city initiated re-zoning and desification elsewhere in Austin?
This type of tiny-lot zoning -- especially
applied area-wide at one time -- would not preserve the traditional
quality of Dawson, but destroy it. How can Sue Karczewski-Hounsel, Cynthia
Medlin and Jerry Garvey claim to represent ANY property owner in
front of the City Council when the Dawson Neighborhood Association
(DNA):
<> 1. has no elections that grant them
this authority
<> 2. has no deed restrictions on property
in Dawson
<> 3. has no functioning by-laws
<> 4. does not restrict membership or
voting by residency
<> 5. does not publish notices of meetings
more than 3 days before the meeting 6. does not publish, discuss
or vote on minutes of previous meetings
<> [6. ?]
<> 7. does not have regularly scheduled
meetings
<> 8. does not follow Robert's Rules
of Order at meetings
<> 9. The Dawson Neighborhood Plan is
not a legally binding document Who is the Dawson Plan Team? Is the Dawson
Plan Team part of the Dawson Exeuctive Committee? When are these
people up for re-election? Typically 10-15 people show up at the
Neighborhood meetings and 3-5 residents show up for the Plan Team
meetings. Is this an illegitimate method by a very, very few to re-zone
private property belonging to hundreds, if not thousands?
| Oct 16, from "Kelley Smoot" <ir003864@mindspring.com> ,Subject: [ANCtalk] Response to a Cherrywood resident about neighborhood-wide re-zoning |
I realize that not many are interested in showing up for meetings of any sort: planning, zoning, general issues, etc. But if you want to have good attendance it's necessary to consistently hold meetings at the same time and place each month, announce the meeting and its agenda at least a week, or even two weeks in advance, and keep everyone who didn't attend the meeting updated through published minutes on what's happened.
None of this has been occurring at the Dawson Neighborhood Association (DNA) for over 3 years. Keep in mind no Neighborhood Plan is legally binding, according to the City Attorney. Our neighborhood plan was actually written by a City Employee, Robert Heil, who I believe also wrote the surveys that were given to an unidentified portion of residents from whose responses Robert Heil wrote the final Plan. Prior to submission to the City Council the Dawson Neighborhood Plan was approved by whomever showed up at a DNA meeting on a few days notice with no prior review of the Plan; I believe there were less than 30 people (out of a population of 3500) at that meeting.
No minutes exist to show who was there, what discussion about the plan took place or how the vote went that 'approved' the plan. The plan is highly contradictory in its goals. Approximately 95% of Dawson residents have never seen a copy of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan. It is not available on the DNA or city's web site. To now say that this plan represents the will of the people of Dawson is, in my opinion, ludicrous. For these reasons (and more) I believe this ultra dense re-zoning is an illegitimate process, conducted by a few, without the knowledge or informed consent of 95-98% of the property owners and tax payers of Dawson.
Concurrent with the issue of Neighborhood Association organization and legitimacy, when did the City Council (or whatever authority, possibly the State of Texas) take re-zoning initiation away from individual property owners and give it to City Employees and/or volunteer Neighborhood Associations (who do not have any legally binding authority or deed restrictions on the property in their area)? Up until now, it is my understanding that should I wish to re-zone my property it is incumbent upon me, as property owner, to hire whomever I see fit, to present the re-zoning issue to the Planning Commission, who schedules a public hearing. Advance notice of this re-zoning hearing is sent to all property owners within 200' (or possibly 300') of the property desiring a zoning change for their comment. Following a public discussion the Planning Commission then votes on the re-zoning. This process is sometimes extended, requiring City Council approval. When did this established process change?
These issues are complex so I apologize for the length of this posting. And it's really two issues: volunteer, un-incorporated Neighborhood Association legitimacy and the power to initiate and re-zone private property. I do not believe City Employees or volunteers have the right to initiate a zoning change through out a neighborhood. I would like to see the law that gave them this power.
As for property values going up, yes, of course, property values are going up. The question I asked Mr. Cory, Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District, was "would this type of development code change make property values rise even faster than they already are?" His response was, "Yes, because any time you increase the impervious cover allowable on a piece of land you increase its value above current market increases." This is because the more you can put on a smaller piece of property, the faster that property becomes worth more.
When I asked him for a written reference on this he was a bit stumped and finally said, "Kelley, it just makes common sense." (FYI: we reviewed two cases, one residential in South Austin and one commercial downtown, where he cited this type of faster and higher land valuation increases due to an increase in the allowed impervious cover.) Note it only takes until January 1st of the next year following infill for the neighborhood to feel the dramatic price escalation in property taxes. Not 10 years, or even 5. This is because TCAD, by law, must assess each property and its environs on January 1st of *each year*. By law, TCAD must change valuations in areas where houses have sold for prices different from those around them *each year*. Also note Dawson has a large percentage of lots that are either empty, or have a single house or duplex on them, dating from the 1940s.
This makes it a particularly attractive target for professional land developers and speculators. Re-subdividing is not that expensive, especially given than many of the houses *are* run down and in poor condition. Professionals can make a lot of money, moving the run-down house off the lot, re-habing it on a cheap lot elsewhere, and putting up little cottages, with 65% impervious cover, and to hell with 100+ year old oak trees and yards.
Also note South Congress is still a
drug and prostitute haven, even more so since the addition just last
year of a private methadone clinic across from St. Ed's. (In fact,
this methadone clinic was the *first* building erected after our
neighborhood plan was adopted by the Mayor and City Council. City
Staff said it was our fault for not specifically mentioning we didn't
want methadone clinics in our plan.) This means property developed
on these deep lots (and then rented out) is at a higher risk than
say, property in Cherrywood, of being used for illegal activity.
And the police have confirmed that property developed in this manner,
with private drives, in not open to patrol by them. And is inaccessible
by EMS and fire vehicles, too. Those lots AND their neighbors will
pay higher taxes for much lower service levels. Thanks again
for your questions and input. Good luck to you on your neighborhood
plan. Remember: it's not a legally binding document.
| Oct 19, from: "Kelley Smoot" <ir003864@mindspring.com>, Subject: [ANCtalk] Dawson Plan Team Meeting: 10/17/00 |
Here's an update on the last night's Dawson Plan Team Meeting (10/17/00). Please forgive if you feel this is a neighborhood-specific topic and are not interested. As the City implements Smart Growth zoning changes it's important to document how zoning is changed on people's home and properties, especially if it appears that the process is different in different parts of the City.
Sue Karczewski-Hounsel, City Planner, and Robert Heil, City Planner and formulator of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan, attended representing the City of Austin. Two commercial property owners attended, including former City Council Member Wesley Pearson and about eight homeowners/residents.
Cynthia Medlin, Coordinator of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan, opened the meeting and announced her resignation, effective that night (10/17/00). Asked when a replacement would be appointed by the City or voted on by Dawson Neighborhood Association (DNA), residents Donna Knapp and Kam Magor stated Cynthia Medlin's position, "Coordinator of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan", was completely separate from the DNA Executive Committee. This was news because at the general DNA meeting Oct. 3rd, Cynthia Medlin had stated her title as, "Planning and Zoning Subcommittee Chairman", and said she would stand for re-election and nomination at the same time as all other Subcommittee Chairs, (postponed since Sept. 5th, now scheduled for Nov. 14 -- IF DNA finishes by-laws and nominates chairmen, tentatively to be elected at the January 2001 meeting). Kam Magor stated "Well it doesn't matter whether or not we replace Cynthia since DNA is operating without by-laws anyway!"
When resident Kelley Smoot questioned the authenticity or jurisdiction of any ballot presented to property owners, changing the zoning of their property, or changing the overlay of what could be built on their property, or their neighbors' property, Robert Heil explained neither he, nor Sue Karczewski-Hounsel, representing the City of Austin, or DNA were operating under any State law or City jurisdiction. They (City Staff and Cynthia Medlin, Plan Team Coordinator) were simply trying to increase property owner awareness of zoning changes/overlays being recommended on their behalf to the City Council.
When Robert Heil was questioned as to availability of printed copies of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan he said the City had run out of copies and was reprinting them, due to great demand. "Thousand of copies have already been distributed," said Robert Heil. Robert Heil acknowledged that the Dawson Neighborhood Plan was not available on the Internet at either the DNA web site or the City of Austin, but was available electronically in PDF format. He offered to send Kelley Smoot an electronic version if she wished to print it (at her own expense). City Employee Robert Heil then gave Kelley Smoot his printed, bound copy of the Dawson Neighborhood Plan and requested resident Kelley Smoot be less sarcastic in her questioning.
This is why this next question was never posed. (Why is Dawson Neighborhood Plan not available on line? If it's available in PDF format for it not to be available on any web site indicates distribution is directed towards certain audiences, chosen by... who? Who are those audiences? Who has received these thousands of copies already printed and distributed, according to Robert Heil? It's not the property owners of Dawson, approximately 98% of whom have never seen or approved a copy of the Plan. Could it be Robert Heil, his supervisors Carol Barret and Austen Liebrach, have distributed their vision of a future Dawson to prospective land owners and developers? Where have all the copies gone?) Sue Karczewski-Hounsel presented two parts of what she suggested should ultimately be a three part ballot mailed to property owners.
The first part listed 6 addresses of property whose base zoning is recommended as being changed by Cynthia Medlin's Dawson Plan Team as prepared by City Employees on City owned computers (see footnote on these documents for origination.) Council Member Wesley Pearson said that he had owned property along South Congress for over 50 years and he was against any changes in any zoning. As one of the property owners of one the 6 listed addressed whose base zoning was suggested for change, he was against that. And Council Member Pearson stated he was against any change of any residential zoning within Dawson boundaries. "I'd like to leave things exactly as they are," Mr. Pearson repeatedly asserted.
A discussion ensued, where City Planner Sue Karczewski-Hounsel counseled him that it was all to his benefit that the zoning of his property change since the City would request it. Mr. Pearson said he had spent upwards of $50,000 last time the City requested a zoning change and the City went ahead and condemned his property, paying him a fraction of its market value, and turned it into the Alpine Rd. drainage pit.
Resident Donna Knapp slammed her fist down on the table and shouted in a loud voice, "I'm tired of this! Can we get back on track?" Council Member Pearson stood up and apologized for taking up time and left. Resident and property owner Niko Ilai asked it the owners of the 6 addresses had been contacted about the change of zoning of their lots. Robert Heil, representing the City of Austin, said that it would be "much better if a Dawson resident contacted the owners," telling them DNA would be recommending to the City their zoning be changed, as a base zoning change "wouldn't be right coming from a City employee". Resident Kelley Smoot noted that the 6 addresses did not necessarily correspond with one address per/lot as indicated. Sue Karczewski-Hounsel stated the City had done all the research they could do and would welcome comments as to how this list could be improved.
Kelley Smoot noted the City of Austin receives much of its income based on TCAD (Travis Central Appraisal District) property appraisals and if TCAD could mail out one notice per lot each year for tax payment then surely the City could correctly identify each lot and each owner and notify them of the zoning change it seeks on their property.
This first section of the mail out presented by City Planner Sue Karczewski-Hounsel also listed a few prohibited and conditional uses of Commercial and Industrial property. No origin of this list was given, nor how it has changed from current restrictions were given. As examples congregate living, group homes (Class I, II and General), Exterminating Services, Residential Treatment, and Outdoor Entertainment would all still be permitted. How uses would actually be excluded was not explained although Robert Heil did say that if a prospective property buyer came forward and honestly announced their intentions to the City, City Staff would inform them of this list.
The second part of the mail out presented by City Planner Sue Karczewski-Hounsel was a 'ballot'. There is a space for name and address, but no place for lot & parcel number, as per TCAD's taxing authority. Robert Heil and Sue Karczewski-Hounsel again gave reassurances that they would try their very best to make sure that each property owner got one vote per lot owned (whether the lot was an acre or 5000 sq. ft.), but they had done as much work as they could possibly do. They intend to simply mail one notice per address and they assume, without correction from the volunteer neighborhood association, that it will be correct.
Kelley Smoot suggested each ballot be marked with the owner's name(s), address, and TCAD lot & block number as a means of solving this problem. Robert Heil noted this request had been made, although both he & Sue Karczewski-Hounsel cautioned it was unlikely the City would do this.
Kelley Smoot suggested the wording of this 'ballot' be changed from "I Support" and "I don't support" zoning changes to a wording indicating that the signer of this ballot was giving approval or disapproval to alter the zoning of their property and their neighbors. Resident Russell Allen said the wording was sufficiently clear as, "Anyone opening up their mail, reading through all this [approx. 9pages] and bothering to vote would know what they were doing."
Cliff Martinez, owner of Ben White Florist, suggested that a "Pro and Con" cover sheet be sent out with the ballots and this was discussed and accepted by Sue Karczewski-Hounsel and Robert Heil. Cliff Martinez suggested that Kelley Smoot be involved with the writing of this fact sheet. Kelley Smoot asked City Employee Robert Heil how many ballots had been returned for the Dawson Neighborhood Plan. It was not clear but the percentage of ballots returned was either 10% or 16% of the total (residents or property owners?) of Dawson Neighborhood. Robert Heil indicated that these [percentage] returns were very good and such percentages would be used in future ballots, such as the re-zoning and infill zoning being discussed, in recommending to the City Council and Mayor the wishes of the majority of the neighborhood.
Kelley Smoot asked if these ballots would be available for public inspection and copying at City offices. City Employee Sue Karczewski-Hounsel said that they discourage the copying of any ballots. She added they could make them available at City offices, if someone could make an appointment at a convenient time to view them in City offices. Sue Karczewski-Hounsel added that it costs $0.10 per page to copy city records, it takes up staff time and effort and that is why copying of records is discouraged. Resident Jerome (Jerry) Garvey said that all of this was NOT a discussion of "zoning changes". There were no zoning changes being conducted (outside of the "six" addresses whose base zoning was changing) but this was a discussion of offering more "options" to property owners as to what could be built on their land. Jerry Garvey also pointed out that the City and DNA had done all it was capable of doing to notify residents of these 'infill options' and that if someone didn't like it they could take whatever legal action they felt necessary to stop the City and/or DNA.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:55pm, as announced by Cynthia Medlin at the start, so that the Presidential Debates could be viewed. No vote was taken upon presenting the City documents as offered by City Employee Sue Karczewski-Hounsel as a ballot to residents. No subsequent Dawson Plan Team meetings were decided upon or announced. No replacement for Cynthia Medlin as Team Leader or Coordinator was discussed. The Dawson Neighborhood Association (DNA) continues to operate without by-laws. No Executive Committee of DNA has been nominated or elected since Sept. 1999. As transcribed from an audio cassette tape, Kelley Smoot