UPDATE MONDAY 6:30 p.m. Just saw the announcement from the City saying the persons referred to in this story seeking the zoning change are now asking that those requests be postponed. In the last paragraph of the below story I wrote that because of actions taken last week by the City Council the R-1-A zoning these applicants are requesting is now mainly reserved for attached, not detached, single family residents and because the applicants seem to be wanting to locate detached residents on these properties I halfway predicted they would return to P&Z quite soon to request a newly created zoning designation, R-1-3. I’m betting the reason this postponement is being requested is so they can skip the middle step and re-file their applications seeking R-1-3 zoning. But that’s just a hunch. Hopefully, I will learn more at tomorrow evening’s meeting.
(Start of original post) The no-growth element in Kyle has staked out the Blanton and Kaminski properties located immediately west of downtown as its Little Big Horn, creating a controversy by spreading false and hate-inspired misinformation where a controversy shouldn’t even exist.
Not only that, their arguments are totally irrelevant to the subject scheduled to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting Tuesday night. Their objections involve what might be ultimately located on those properties; Tuesday’s meeting has nothing to do that with that, only a request for a zoning change. In fact, it is illegal in Texas to decide a zoning request based on what might be located on the property in question. Texas law makes a clear distinction between zoning decisions and land-use decisions. Of course, that hasn’t stopped the Planning & Zoning Commission from stumbling across this boundary before. In fact, the commission’s mishandling of the zoning request involving land being considered as the potential site of a giant truck stop on Kyle’s southern border just about guaranteed that the much-maligned facility would be located there. Only a last-minute intervention from Kyle and San Marcos elected officials prevented that from becoming a reality.
The request is to change the zoning on triangle-shaped land bordered roughly by Scott Street to the east, South Old Stagecoach Road on the west and a residential area on the north that’s right across West Center Street from Wallace Middle School and Gregg-Clarke Park.
The zoning change is really not all that radical: a request to change 68.5 acres that’s currently zoned R-1-2 single family residential plus another 10.38 acres zoned central business district to R-1-A single family residential. This type of zoning allows for, according to the city’s zoning ordinances, "attached or detached single-family structures with a minimum of 1,000 square feet of living area and permitted accessory structures on a minimum lot size of 4,800 square feet at no more than 6.8 houses per buildable acre. The single family residences authorized in this zoning district include those generally referred to as garden homes, patio homes and zero lot line homes." Interestingly, this zoning request that’s so vehemently opposed by the no-folks element is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan that was largely fashioned by this same no-growth element.
But any kind of growth is, by definition, an anathema to the no-growth element (although, to be honest, this element is not all that consistent because it doesn’t seem to be registering any objection to an identical zoning request east of I-35 the commissioners will also be considering Tuesday).
One of the talking points of the those opposing this request is the lie that it will promote flooding. The truth is (1) the simple act of rezoning a property has absolutely no effect on water flow because rezoning does not, in itself, change the character of the land one bit, and (2) if at some future date the property is zoned in compliance with the R-1-A, it will go a long way towards mitigating any flooding problems that area may be experiencing currently. That’s because, again in the city’s own words, "as a function of initiating any new development project in the City of Kyle, development professionals are required to make provisions for storm water management based on the expected impact that project will have on the property following construction." In other words, before the city permits work to begin on any new development, the city’s stormwater management experts must approve the developers’ plans to deal with any and all stormwater issues and that includes flood prevention.
But that flooding argument, however false, is not the ugly one. The talking point that I find particularly vile is that the zoning change will increase crime in the area. Granted, I realize even these people are not stupid enough (at least I’m hoping they’re not stupid enough) to actually believe the mere act of rezoning a property will promote crime. I seriously doubt (or should I say I hope) there’s no one out there who believes any sort of criminal element is just waiting for this property to be rezoned R-1-A so they can storm this vacant lot and commit heavens-knows-what. But I also find the sort of thinking the development of any kind of single-family residential project will, in and of itself, promote crime to be bigotry in the first degree. Here is a note the city received from someone identifying himself as Efrain Lopez of 102 Cisneros Street: "housing will bring crime … to the neighborhood. I have owned my property since 1969 — I do not want housing in my backyard. Will bring crime to Wallace Middle School and Gregg Clarke Park."
I will give this person some benefit of doubt. I’m going to guess what this person is really afraid of is change, pure and simple. Any kind of change. I would be willing to bet this person would be just as opposed to Donald Trump wanting to build a luxury resort on the property. The human psyche is wired to be, at worse, completely resistant, or, at best, mildly apprehensive, of change of any kind — marriage, divorce, relocation, a new job, a new boss, a new child — whatever. But to argue a residential development of this sort automatically brings with it a spike in crime is extremely prejudicial, bigoted and simply not supported y facts. That is not a logical argument but, instead, a no-growth strategy that could be implemented against any and all developments proposed for Kyle or anywhere else for that matter.
The city’s counter argument is that any development in this area will increase the value of the properties of those already living there. "Due to downtown Kyle’s central location creating convenient access to nearby emerging residential, more citizens will naturally travel to the central business district, which in turn will increase the demand for more businesses supporting that new housing," the city officials wrote in documents accompanying the zoning request. "That same demand will likely spur additional commercial development not only along Center Street, but into the surrounding street network in close proximity." Those, of course, are not words the no-growth element wants to read or hear, hence its opposition to this request.
But, to me, this is the kicker: "Furthermore," the city’s documents state, "the development of the property adjacent to- and in proximity to public services (public library, parks, public schools, etc.) reduces the reliance on the automobile in these areas while increasing desirability and value of residential development." As readers of this journal can easily discern, I am not a no-growth advocate. But neither am I a promoter what some consider the only alternative, pro-growth. I believe in a strategy called "Smart Growth," a strategy, for those interested, described in detail in such books as The Smart Growth Manual by Andres Duany and Jeff Speck with Mike Lydon and Thoughts on Building Strong Towns by Charles L. Marohn Jr., which advocates for communities comprised of self-sustaining neighborhoods in which all major needs can be met within walking distance of where you live. It makes sense. The only way to reduce traffic, prolong road viability and promote air quality is to find reasons to get as many automobiles off the road as possible.
Here’s the hidden, tricky, part to the above-cited zoning requests, however. Under changes to the city’s zoning ordinances passed last week by the City Council, R-1-A is now reserved for attached single family residences such as those pictured here. Detached single family residential units are now permitted in R-1-A zoning only as a conditional use following a public hearing and a P&Z recommendation based on "the effect of the proposed use on the adjacent and neighboring properties and neighborhoods." However, those changes passed by the council last week also created the zoning category called R-1-3 which allows single family detached residences with a 1,000 square foot minimum living space and permitted accessory structures on a minimum lot size of 5,540 square foot with no more than 5.5 houses per buildable acre. In other words, this would be slightly less dense a development than R-1-A. However, where I come from, increased density is more desirable the closer you are to the downtown district. I bring this up because there is absolutely nothing that I could see that would prevent these property owners from returning to Planning & Zoning in the near future to request another zoning change, this one to R-1-3.
Of course, the no-growth folks would fight that request as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment