This isn't CWS versus Save Town Lake, but it does exemplify what is wrong with Austin's zoning process.
Developers Leslie Moore and Magdalena Rood want the city to rezone a one-half acre lot near Stassney and South Congress from SF-2 to SF-3. (Moore and Rood redeveloped the small cottages across from the Texas School for the Deaf into the eclectic shopping area there now.)
This shouldn't be controversial. Almost all of the single-family properties in the area are zoned SF-3. SF-3, in fact, is the predominant single-family district in Austin. This neighborhood is fairly central these days -- a little over one mile south of Ben White. The area is close to three major arterials and several bus stops. It is a natural place for denser development.
But the neighbors are having none of it. SF-3 allows minimum lot sizes of 5,750 sf for single-family homes rather than SF-2's 10,000 sf minimum. Even worse (from the neighbors' perspective), SF-3 allows duplexes. The neighbors object to the upzoning because it would allow Moore and Rood to subdivde the property into three lots and build as many as five units (two duplexes and one single-family home). [See correction below.] They object even though there is a duplex next door and a duplex across the street.
They cite that old standby, "neighborhood character." Go with what's worked elsewhere, I guess. But In Fact Daily's coverage (gated) suggests they're worried about something else:
“We met with some of our neighbors and listened to their objections. The things that they were concerned about were things like not wanting to have renters in the neighborhood. They want people who are going to be homeowners in the neighborhood,” Moore said. “Well, I don’t think there’s ever been anyone of us who can guarantee that that’s going to happen, and, besides that, I think that there’s a lot of us out there who are renters, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Homeowner Andrea McCartney, speaking on behalf of her neighbors, said her neighbors did not oppose growth as long as it was controlled growth. In this case, the lot was located on a block in her neighborhood where duplexes and condominiums have stayed on the market for months.
The Planning Commission has already approved the rezoning. The case came before City Council on June 18, but it apparently is so controversial, so contentious, that Council postponed it to July 23 so the neighbors and Moore can continue to negotiate (despite the apparent impasse). And, because the neighbors have filed a valid petition in opposition, approval will take a Council super-majority.
And so we are handed a nice illustration of all that is wrong with zoning in Austin:
1. Systematic under-zoning. Our zoning districts are gerrymandered, sometimes block by block. This allows each district to be zoned for the least intensive use compatible with the surrounding uses. Larger districts require more intensive zoning in order to accommodate a broader range of uses. For example, the city had to carve out this tiny, six-block "neighborhood" in order to give it SF-2 zoning; a larger district would have required the city to stick to the SF-3 zoning in the surrounding neighborhoods.
2. Neighborhood groups that exploit zoning regulations for improper purposes. Zoning was not intended to regulate a neighborhood's mix of renters and homeowners.
3. A zoning process that dissipates enormous resources on every trifling dispute. By the time this is over, this one single-family lot will have consumed a ot of Planning Commission and City Council time, not to mention the time of city staff and the property owners themselves.
4. A zoning process that gives undue weight to neighborhood objections. Because the neighbors have filed a valid petition, simply changing this parcel from one single-family classification to another will require a Council super-majority.
Austin is growing. All central neighborhoods face -- and will continue to face --nearly constant development pressure. Our goal should be to help our neighborhoods gracefully transition to denser, more urban places. Our zoning regime does the opposite, though. It encourages neighborhoods to object to every upzoning, no matter how flimsy the pretext. Council approves upzonings in a scattershot manner, embittering one side or the other. We're left with gerrymandered districts that are themselves pockmarked with stifling overlays, covenants and spot zonings. And the property owners are guaranteed another trip to Council whenever they want to change the use.
Correction: Commenter Don Johnson corrects me that SF-2 permits a minimum of 5,750 sf, which is the same as SF-3. (SF-1 has a 10,000 sf minimum.) This lot is almost 20,000 sf, which theoretically is large enough for three lots even under SF-2. I suspect, however, that the requirement that all lots in a subdivision front a public street, combined with the 50 foot minimum lot width, will prevent subdivision into three lots.
